Polycrystalline diamond, polycrystalline diamond compacts, methods of making same, and applications

- US SYNTHETIC CORPORATION

Embodiments of the invention relate to polycrystalline diamond compacts (“PDC”) exhibiting enhanced diamond-to-diamond bonding. In an embodiment, a PDC includes a polycrystalline diamond (“PCD”) table bonded to a substrate. At least a portion of the PCD table includes a plurality of diamond grains defining a plurality of interstitial regions. The plurality of interstitial regions includes a metal-solvent catalyst. The plurality of diamond grains exhibit an average grain size of about 30 μm or less. The plurality of diamond grains and the metal-solvent catalyst collectively exhibit an average electrical conductivity of less than about 1200 S/m. Other embodiments are directed to PCD, employing such PCD, methods of forming PCD and PDCs, and various applications for such PCD and PDCs in rotary drill bits, bearing apparatuses, and wire-drawing dies.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/080,379 filed on 24 Mar. 2016, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/486,578 filed on 1 Jun. 2012 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,315,881), which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/858,906 filed on 18 Aug. 2010 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,459,236), which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/244,960 filed on 3 Oct. 2008 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,866,418), the contents of each of the foregoing applications are incorporated herein, in their entirety, by this reference.

BACKGROUND

Wear-resistant, superabrasive compacts are utilized in a variety of mechanical applications. For example, polycrystalline diamond compacts (“PDCs”) are used in drilling tools (e.g., cutting elements, gage trimmers, etc.), machining equipment, bearing apparatuses, wire-drawing machinery, and in other mechanical apparatuses.

PDCs have found particular utility as superabrasive cutting elements in rotary drill bits, such as roller-cone drill bits and fixed-cutter drill bits. A PDC cutting element typically includes a superabrasive diamond layer commonly referred to as a diamond table. The diamond table may be formed and bonded to a substrate using a high-pressure, high-temperature (“HPHT”) process. The PDC cutting element may also be brazed directly into a preformed pocket, socket, or other receptacle formed in the bit body. The substrate may often be brazed or otherwise joined to an attachment member, such as a cylindrical backing. A rotary drill bit typically includes a number of PDC cutting elements affixed to the bit body. It is also known that a stud carrying the PDC may be used as a PDC cutting element when mounted to a bit body of a rotary drill bit by press-fitting, brazing, or otherwise securing the stud into a receptacle formed in the bit body.

Conventional PDCs are normally fabricated by placing a cemented carbide substrate into a container with a volume of diamond particles positioned adjacent to the cemented carbide substrate. A number of such cartridges may be loaded into an HPHT press. The substrates and volume of diamond particles are then processed under HPHT conditions in the presence of a catalyst material that causes the diamond particles to bond to one another to form a matrix of bonded diamond grains defining a polycrystalline diamond (“PCD”) table that is bonded to the substrate. The catalyst material is often a metal-solvent catalyst (e.g., cobalt, nickel, iron, or alloys thereof) that is used for promoting intergrowth of the diamond particles.

In one conventional approach, a constituent of the cemented carbide substrate, such as cobalt from a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate, liquefies and sweeps from a region adjacent to the volume of diamond particles into interstitial regions between the diamond particles during the HPHT process. The cobalt acts as a catalyst to promote intergrowth between the diamond particles, which results in formation of bonded diamond grains. Often, a solvent catalyst may be mixed with the diamond particles prior to subjecting the diamond particles and substrate to the HPHT process.

The presence of the solvent catalyst in the PCD table is believed to reduce the thermal stability of the PCD table at elevated temperatures. For example, the difference in thermal expansion coefficient between the diamond grains and the solvent catalyst is believed to lead to chipping or cracking of the PCD table during drilling or cutting operations, which can degrade the mechanical properties of the PCD table or cause failure. Additionally, some of the diamond grains can undergo a chemical breakdown or back-conversion to graphite via interaction with the solvent catalyst. At elevated high temperatures, portions of the diamond grains may transform to carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, graphite, or combinations thereof, thus degrading the mechanical properties of the PDC.

One conventional approach for improving the thermal stability of a PDC is to at least partially remove the solvent catalyst from the PCD table of the PDC by acid leaching. However, removing the solvent catalyst from the PCD table can be relatively time consuming for high-volume manufacturing. Additionally, depleting the solvent catalyst may decrease the mechanical strength of the PCD table.

Despite the availability of a number of different PCD materials, manufacturers and users of PCD materials continue to seek PCD materials that exhibit improved mechanical and/or thermal properties.

SUMMARY

Embodiments of the invention relate to PCD exhibiting enhanced diamond-to-diamond bonding and related PDCs, rotary drill bits, and methods of fabrication. In an embodiment, PCD includes a plurality of diamond grains defining a plurality of interstitial regions. The plurality of diamond grains exhibit an average grain size of about 30 μm or less. A metal-solvent catalyst occupies at least a portion of the plurality of interstitial regions. The plurality of diamond grains and the metal-solvent catalyst collectively may exhibit an average electrical conductivity of less than about 1200 S/m.

In an embodiment, a PDC includes a PCD table having a plurality of diamond grains defining a plurality of interstitial regions. The PCD table is bonded to a substrate. A metal-solvent catalyst occupies at least a portion of the plurality of interstitial regions. The plurality of diamond grains exhibit an average grain size of about 30 μm or less. The plurality of diamond grains and the metal-solvent catalyst collectively may exhibit an average electrical conductivity of less than about 1200 S/m.

In an embodiment, a method includes enclosing a plurality of diamond particles and a metal-solvent catalyst in a pressure transmitting medium to form a cell assembly. The plurality of the diamond particles exhibits an average particle size of about 30 μm or less. The method further includes subjecting the cell assembly to a temperature of at least about 1000° Celsius and a pressure in the pressure transmitting medium of at least about 7.5 GPa to form PCD. The PCD exhibits an average electrical conductivity of less than about 1200 S/m.

In an embodiment a rotary drill bit includes a bit body including a leading end structure configured to facilitate drilling a subterranean formation. The rotary drill bit also includes a plurality of cutting elements mounted to the blades. At least one of the plurality of cutting elements includes a PCD element. At least a portion of the PCD element includes a plurality of diamond grains defining a plurality of interstitial regions, the plurality of interstitial regions, including metal-solvent catalyst. The at least a portion of the PCD element exhibits an average electrical conductivity of less than about 1200 S/m.

Further embodiments relate to applications utilizing the disclosed PCD and PDCs in various articles and apparatuses, such as rotary drill bits, bearing apparatuses, wire-drawing dies, machining equipment, and other articles and apparatuses.

Features from any of the disclosed embodiments may be used in combination with one another, without limitation. In addition, other features and advantages of the present disclosure will become apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art through consideration of the following detailed description and the accompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The drawings illustrate several embodiments of the invention, wherein identical reference numerals refer to identical elements or features in different views or embodiments shown in the drawings.

FIG. 1A is a schematic diagram of an example of a magnetic saturation apparatus configured to magnetize a PCD sample approximately to saturation.

FIG. 1B is a schematic diagram of an example of a magnetic saturation measurement apparatus configured to measure a saturation magnetization of a PCD sample.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an example of a coercivity measurement apparatus configured to determine a coercivity of a PCD sample.

FIG. 3A is an isometric view of an embodiment of a PDC including a PCD table formed from any of the PCD embodiments disclosed herein.

FIG. 3B is a functional block diagram of an embodiment of a multi-probe resistance measurement testing system configured to measure electrical resistance of a PCD table that may be used to measure electrical conductivity of the PCD or PCD tables disclosed herein.

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram for four-probe electrical resistance measurements on a PDC sample using the system shown in FIG. 3A.

FIG. 5 is a top isometric view of the sensor-probe arrangement of the testing system shown in FIG. 4.

FIG. 6A is an isometric view of an embodiment of a sample-holder assembly for holding a PDC sample to be tested.

FIG. 6B is a cross-sectional view of the sample-holder assembly shown in FIG. 6A, with a PDC sample to be tested held therein.

FIGS. 7A and 7B are electrical conductivity distributions in PCD tables of two different PDC cutter samples, with the electrical conductivity grey scale in Siemens/meter (“S/m”).

FIG. 8A is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of a PDC including a PCD table formed from any of the PCD embodiments disclosed herein.

FIG. 8B is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of a PDC illustrating a PCD table that has been leached to deplete metal-solvent catalyst from a region thereof.

FIG. 8C is an enlarged cross-sectional view of FIG. 8A of the PDC shown in FIG. 8A.

FIG. 8D is an electrical conductivity gradient profile of the PCD table shown in FIG. 8A showing the magnitude of the electrical conductivity represented as arrow length, with the magnitude of the electrical conductivity decreasing with distance from the working surface.

FIG. 9 is a graph illustrating the electrical conductivity, σ, versus cell pressure relationship in which electrical conductivity decreases with increasing cell pressure.

FIG. 10 is a graph illustrating the wear volume from a vertical turret lathe (“VTL”) test versus cell pressure relationship in which wear volume decreases with increasing cell pressure.

FIG. 11A is a schematic illustration of a method of fabricating the PDC shown in FIG. 8A.

FIG. 11B is a schematic illustration of a method of fabricating another embodiment of a PDC using the methods disclosed herein.

FIG. 12 is a graph illustrating residual principal stress versus substrate thickness that was measured in a PCD table of a PDC fabricated at a pressure above about 7.5 GPa and a PCD table of a conventionally formed PDC.

FIG. 13 is an isometric view of an embodiment of a rotary drill bit that may employ one or more of the disclosed PDC embodiments.

FIG. 14 is a top elevation view of the rotary drill bit shown in FIG. 13.

FIG. 15 is an isometric cut-away view of an embodiment of a thrust-bearing apparatus that may utilize one or more of the disclosed PDC embodiments.

FIG. 16 is an isometric cut-away view of an embodiment of a radial bearing apparatus that may utilize one or more of the disclosed PDC embodiments.

FIG. 17 is a schematic isometric cut-away view of an embodiment of a subterranean drilling system including the thrust-bearing apparatus shown in FIG. 15.

FIG. 18 is a side cross-sectional view of an embodiment of a wire-drawing die that employs a PDC fabricated in accordance with the principles described herein.

 DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Embodiments of the invention relate to PCD exhibiting enhanced diamond-to-diamond bonding and related PDCs, rotary drill bits, and methods of fabrication. It is currently believed by the inventors that as the sintering cell pressure employed during the HPHT process used to fabricate such PCD is moved further into the diamond-stable region away from the graphite-diamond equilibrium line, the rate of nucleation and growth of diamond increases. Such increased nucleation and growth of diamond between diamond particles (for a given diamond particle formulation) may result in PCD being formed exhibiting a relatively lower metal-solvent catalyst content with an associated relatively low average electrical conductivity, a higher coercivity, a lower specific magnetic saturation, and/or a lower specific permeability (i.e., the ratio of specific magnetic saturation to coercivity) than PCD formed at a lower sintering pressure. Embodiments also relate to PDCs having a PCD table comprising such PCD, methods of fabricating such PCD and PDCs, and applications for such PCD and PDCs in rotary drill bits, bearing apparatuses, wire-drawing dies, machining equipment, and other articles and apparatuses.

PCD Embodiments

According to various embodiments, unleached PCD sintered at a pressure of at least about 7.5 GPa may exhibit a coercivity of 115 Oe or more, a high-degree of diamond-to-diamond bonding, a specific magnetic saturation of about 15 G·cm3/g or less, a metal-solvent catalyst content of about 7.5 weight % (“wt %”) or less, an electrical conductivity of less than about 1200 S/m, or combinations thereof. The PCD includes a plurality of diamond grains directly bonded together via diamond-to-diamond bonding to define a plurality of interstitial regions. At least a portion of the interstitial regions or, in some embodiments, substantially all, or a substantial portion of the interstitial regions may be occupied by a metal-solvent catalyst, such as iron, nickel, cobalt, or alloys of any of the foregoing metals. For example, the metal-solvent catalyst may be a cobalt-based material including at least 50 wt % cobalt, such as a cobalt alloy.

The diamond grains may exhibit an average grain size of about 50 μm or less, such as about 30 μm or less or about 20 μm or less. For example, the average grain size of the diamond grains may be about 10 μm to about 20 μm, about 15 μm to about 19.5 μm, about 15 μm to about 18 μm, about 10 μm to about 18 μm, or about 5 μm to about 18 μm. In some embodiments, the average grain size of the diamond grains may be about 10 μm or less, such as about 2 μm to about 5 μm or submicron. The diamond grain size distribution of the diamond grains may exhibit a single mode, or may be a bimodal or greater grain size distribution.

The metal-solvent catalyst that occupies the interstitial regions may be present in the PCD in an amount of about 7.5 wt % or less. In some embodiments, the metal-solvent catalyst may be present in the PCD in an amount of greater than 0 wt % to about 7.5 wt %, about 3 wt % to about 7.5 wt %, greater than 0 wt % to about 6 wt %, or about 3 wt % to about 6 wt %. In other embodiments, the metal-solvent catalyst content may be present in the PCD in an amount less than about 3 wt %, such as about 1 wt % to about 3 wt % or a residual amount to about 1 wt %. By maintaining the metal-solvent catalyst content below about 7.5 wt %, the PCD may exhibit a desirable level of thermal stability suitable for subterranean drilling applications.

Many physical characteristics of the PCD may be determined by measuring certain magnetic and electrical properties of the PCD because the metal-solvent catalyst may be ferromagnetic. The amount of the metal-solvent catalyst present in the PCD may be correlated with the measured specific magnetic saturation of the PCD. A relatively larger specific magnetic saturation indicates relatively more metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD.

The mean free path between neighboring diamond grains of the PCD may be correlated with the measured coercivity of the PCD. A relatively large coercivity indicates a relatively smaller mean free path. The mean free path is representative of the average distance between neighboring diamond grains of the PCD, and thus may be indicative of the extent of diamond-to-diamond bonding in the PCD. A relatively smaller mean free path, in well-sintered PCD, may indicate relatively more diamond-to-diamond bonding.

As merely one example, ASTM B886-03 (2008) provides a suitable standard for measuring the specific magnetic saturation and ASTM B887-03 (2008) e1 provides a suitable standard for measuring the coercivity of the PCD. Although both ASTM B886-03 (2008) and ASTM B887-03 (2008) e1 are directed to standards for measuring magnetic properties of cemented carbide materials, either standard may be used to determine the magnetic properties of PCD. A KOERZIMAT CS 1.096 instrument (commercially available from Foerster Instruments of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is one suitable instrument that may be used to measure the specific magnetic saturation and the coercivity of the PCD.

Generally, as the sintering pressure that is used to form the PCD increases, the coercivity may increase while the magnetic saturation and electrical conductivity may decrease. The PCD defined collectively by the bonded diamond grains and the metal-solvent catalyst may exhibit one or more of the following properties: a coercivity of about 115 Oe or more, a metal-solvent catalyst content of less than about 7.5 wt % as indicated by a specific magnetic saturation of about 15 G·cm3/g or less, or an electrical conductivity less than about 1200 S/m. For example, the electrical conductivity may be an average electrical conductivity of the PCD (e.g., a PCD table) or a region of the PCD. In a more detailed embodiment, the coercivity of the PCD may be about 115 Oe to about 250 Oe, the specific magnetic saturation of the PCD may be greater than 0 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g, and the electrical conductivity may be about 25 S/m to about 1000 S/m. In an even more detailed embodiment, the coercivity of the PCD may be about 115 Oe to about 175 Oe, the specific magnetic saturation of the PCD may be about 5 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g, and the electrical conductivity may be less than about 750 S/m. In another more detailed embodiment, the coercivity of the PCD may be about 155 Oe to about 175 Oe, the specific magnetic saturation of the PCD may be about 10 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g, and the electrical conductivity may be less than about 500 S/m. In yet a another embodiment the coercivity of the PCD may be 155 Oe to about 175 Oe, the specific magnetic saturation of the PCD may be about 10 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g, and the electrical conductivity may be about 100 S/m to about 500 S/m. In another embodiment, the coercivity of the PCD may be about 130 Oe to about 160 Oe, the specific magnetic saturation of the PCD may be about 5 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g, and the electrical conductivity may be about 50 S/m to about 150 S/m. The specific permeability (i.e., the ratio of specific magnetic saturation to coercivity) of the PCD may be about 0.10 or less, such as about 0.060 to about 0.090. Despite the average grain size of the bonded diamond grains being less than about 30 μm, the metal-solvent catalyst content in the PCD may be less than about 7.5 wt % resulting in a desirable thermal stability.

As discussed above, the electrical conductivity of the PCD may be less than 1200 S/m. In some embodiments, the electrical conductivity may be less than 1000 S/m, such as about 25 S/m to about 1000 S/m. In other embodiments, the electrical conductivity may be less than 750 S/m. In another embodiment, the electrical conductivity may be less than 500 S/m, such as about 100 S/m to about 500 S/m. In a more restrictive embodiment, the electrical conductivity may be about 50 S/m to about 150 S/m.

In an embodiment, diamond particles having an average particle size of about 18 μm to about 20 μm are positioned adjacent to a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate and subjected to an HPHT process at a temperature of about 1390° C. to about 1430° C. and a pressure of about 7.8 GPa to about 8.5 GPa. The PCD so-formed as a PCD table bonded to the substrate may exhibit one or more of the following properties: a coercivity of about 155 Oe to about 175 Oe, a specific magnetic saturation of about 10 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g, and a cobalt content of about 5 wt % to about 7.5 wt %, or an electrical conductivity less than about 750 S/m.

In one or more embodiments, a specific magnetic saturation constant for the metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD may be about 185 G·cm3/g to about 215 G·cm3/g. For example, the specific magnetic saturation constant for the metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD may be about 195 G·cm3/g to about 205 G·cm3/g. It is noted that the specific magnetic saturation constant for the metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD may be composition dependent.

Generally, as the sintering pressure is increased above 7.5 GPa, a wear resistance of the PCD so-formed may increase relative to PCD formed at lower pressures. For example, the Gram may be at least about 4.0×106, such as about 5.0×106 to about 15.0×106 or, more particularly, about 8.0×106 to about 15.0×106. In some embodiments, the Gratio may be at least about 30.0×106. The Gratio is the ratio of the volume of workpiece cut to the volume of PCD worn away during a cutting process, such as in a vertical turret lathe (“VTL”) test in which the workpiece is cooled during the cutting process. An example of suitable parameters that may be used to determine a Gratio of the PCD are a depth of cut for the PCD cutting element of about 0.254 mm, a back rake angle for the PCD cutting element of about 20 degrees, an in-feed for the PCD cutting element of about 6.35 mm/rev, a rotary speed of the workpiece to be cut of about 101 rpm, and the workpiece may be made from Barre granite having a 914 mm outer diameter and a 254 mm inner diameter. During the Gratio test, the workpiece is cooled with a coolant, such as water.

In addition to the aforementioned Gratio, despite the presence of the metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD, the PCD may exhibit a thermal stability that is close to, substantially the same as, or greater than a partially leached PCD material formed by sintering a substantially similar diamond particle formulation at a lower sintering pressure (e.g., up to about 5.5 GPa) and in which the metal-solvent catalyst (e.g., cobalt) is leached therefrom to a depth of about 60 μm to about 100 μm from a working surface. The thermal stability of the PCD may be evaluated by measuring the distance cut in a workpiece prior to catastrophic failure, without using coolant, in a vertical lathe test (e.g., vertical turret lathe or a vertical boring mill). An example of suitable parameters that may be used to determine thermal stability of the PCD are a depth of cut for the PCD cutting element of about 1.27 mm, a back rake angle for the PCD cutting element of about 20 degrees, an in-feed for the PCD cutting element of about 1.524 mm/rev, a cutting speed of the workpiece to be cut of about 1.78 m/sec, and the workpiece may be made from Bane granite having a 914 mm outer diameter and a 254 mm inner diameter. In an embodiment, the distance cut in a workpiece prior to catastrophic failure as measured in the above-described vertical lathe test may be at least about 1300 m, such as about 1300 m to about 3950 m.

PCD formed by sintering diamond particles having the same diamond particle size distribution as a PCD embodiment of the invention, but sintered at a pressure of, for example, up to about 5.5 GPa and at temperatures in which diamond is stable may exhibit a coercivity of about 100 Oe or less, a specific magnetic saturation of about 16 G·cm3/g or more, and an electrical conductivity of about 750 S/m or more. Thus, in one or more embodiments of the invention, PCD exhibits a metal-solvent catalyst content of less than 7.5 wt % and a greater amount of diamond-to-diamond bonding between diamond grains than that of a PCD sintered at a lower pressure, but with the same precursor diamond particle size distribution and catalyst.

It is currently believed by the inventors that forming the PCD by sintering diamond particles at a pressure of at least about 7.5 GPa may promote nucleation and growth of diamond between the diamond particles being sintered so that the volume of the interstitial regions of the PCD so-formed is decreased compared to the volume of interstitial regions if the same diamond particle distribution was sintered at a pressure of, for example, up to about 5.5 GPa and at temperatures where diamond is stable. For example, the diamond may nucleate and grow from carbon provided by dissolved carbon in metal-solvent catalyst (e.g., liquefied cobalt) infiltrating into the diamond particles being sintered, partially graphitized diamond particles, carbon from a substrate, carbon from another source (e.g., graphite particles and/or fullerenes mixed with the diamond particles), or combinations of the foregoing. This nucleation and growth of diamond in combination with the sintering pressure of at least about 7.5 GPa may contribute to PCD so-formed having a metal-solvent catalyst content of less than about 7.5 wt %.

FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 2 schematically illustrate the manner in which the specific magnetic saturation and the coercivity of the PCD may be determined using an apparatus, such as the KOERZIMAT CS 1.096 instrument. FIG. 1A is a schematic diagram of an example of a magnetic saturation apparatus 100 configured to magnetize a PCD sample to saturation. The magnetic saturation apparatus 100 includes a saturation magnet 102 of sufficient strength to magnetize a PCD sample 104 at least approximately to saturation. The saturation magnet 102 may be a permanent magnet or an electromagnet. In the illustrated embodiment, the saturation magnet 102 is a permanent magnet that defines an air gap 106, and the PCD sample 104 may be positioned on a sample holder 108 within the air gap 106. When the PCD sample 104 is light-weight, it may be secured to the sample holder 108 using, for example, double-sided tape or other adhesive so that the PCD sample 104 does not move responsive to the magnetic field from the saturation magnet 102 and the PCD sample 104 is magnetized approximately to saturation.

Referring to the schematic diagram of FIG. 1B, after magnetizing the PCD sample 104 approximately to saturation using the magnetic saturation apparatus 100, a magnetic saturation of the PCD sample 104 may be measured using a magnetic saturation measurement apparatus 120. The magnetic saturation measurement apparatus 120 includes a Helmholtz measuring coil 122 defining a passageway dimensioned so that the magnetized PCD sample 104 may be positioned therein on a sample holder 124. Once positioned in the passageway, the sample holder 124 supporting the magnetized PCD sample 104 may be moved axially along an axis direction 126 to induce a current in the Helmholtz measuring coil 122. Measurement electronics 128 are coupled to the Helmholtz measuring coil 122 and configured to calculate the magnetic saturation based upon the measured current passing through the Helmholtz measuring coil 122. The measurement electronics 128 may also be configured to calculate a weight percentage of magnetic material in the PCD sample 104 when the composition and magnetic characteristics of the metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD sample 104 are known, such as with iron, nickel, cobalt, and alloys thereof. Specific magnetic saturation may be calculated based upon the calculated magnetic saturation and the measured weight of the PCD sample 104.

The amount of metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD sample 104 may be determined using a number of different analytical techniques. For example, energy dispersive spectroscopy (e.g., EDAX), wavelength dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (e.g., WDX), and/or Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy may be employed to determine the amount of metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD sample 104.

If desired, a specific magnetic saturation constant of the metal-solvent catalyst content in the PCD sample 104 may be determined using an iterative approach. A value for the specific magnetic saturation constant of the metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD sample 104 may be iteratively chosen until a metal-solvent catalyst content calculated by the analysis software of the KOERZIMAT CS 1.096 instrument using the chosen value substantially matches the metal-solvent catalyst content determined via an analytical technique, such as energy dispersive spectroscopy, wavelength dispersive x-ray spectroscopy, and/or Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a coercivity measurement apparatus 200 configured to determine a coercivity of a PCD sample. The coercivity measurement apparatus 200 includes a coil 202 and measurement electronics 204 coupled to the coil 202. The measurement electronics 204 are configured to pass a current through the coil 202 so that a magnetic field is generated. A sample holder 206 having a PCD sample 208 thereon may be positioned within the coil 202. A magnetization sensor 210 configured to measure a magnetization of the PCD sample 208 may be coupled to the measurement electronics 204 and positioned in proximity to the PCD sample 208.

During testing, the magnetic field generated by the coil 202 magnetizes the PCD sample 208 approximately to saturation. Then, the measurement electronics 204 apply a current so that the magnetic field generated by the coil 202 is increasingly reversed. The magnetization sensor 210 measures a magnetization of the PCD sample 208 resulting from application of the reversed magnetic field to the PCD sample 208. The measurement electronics 204 determine the coercivity of the PCD sample 208, which is a measurement of the reverse magnetic field at which the magnetization of the PCD sample 208 is zero.

Although diamond is not electrically conductive by itself, the sintering process for fabricating PCD introduces small amounts of metal-solvent catalyst (e.g., iron, nickel, cobalt, or alloys thereof) into the interstitial regions between the bonded diamond grains of the PCD. For example, cobalt present during sintering of diamond particles, may act as a metal-solvent catalyst that promotes diamond-to-diamond crystal bonding between the diamond grains during the HPHT sintering process. The macroscopic electrical conductivity of PCD may be related to the metal-solvent catalyst content therein.

Additives to the PCD table may also influence the electrical conductivity thereof. For example, the PCD table may include silicon, silicon carbide, graphite, tungsten, tungsten carbide, boron, combinations thereof, or other selected constituents. Some additives may be alloyed with the metal-solvent catalyst of the PCD table (prior to or during the HPHT process) that is present interstitially between bonded diamond grains. For example, cobalt may be alloyed with tungsten and/or boron.

An embodiment of a PDC 300 including a PCD table 302 and a cemented carbide substrate 304 is shown in FIG. 3A. The PCD table 302 includes at least one lateral surface 305, an upper exterior working surface 303, and may include an optional chamfer 307 formed therebetween. It is noted that at least a portion of the at least one lateral surface 305 and/or the chamfer 307 may also function as a working surface (e.g., that contacts a subterranean formation during drilling operations).

An average electrical conductivity for the PCD table 302 may be calculated based at least partially on at least one measured electrical resistance. Because measurements may be taken at a plurality of locations, any non-uniformity within the distribution of the electrical conductivity of the PCD table 302 may also be determined, if desired. The existence of such non-uniformities (e.g., regions of significantly higher or lower conductivity) can be due to poorly sintered diamond grains, high metal-solvent catalyst content regions, porosity, and/or cracks.

It will be readily apparent to one of skill in the art that actual calculation of the electrical conductivity of the PCD table 302 may not be necessary in every case, as one may alternatively compare the measured electrical resistance (or another characteristic that correlates to electrical conductivity) to a threshold value known to correlate to the threshold electrical conductivity value for a given PCD microstructure. In another embodiment, the electrical conductivity may be measured directly.

FIG. 3B is a functional block diagram of an embodiment of a multi-probe resistance measurement electrical impedance testing (“EIT”) system 400 that may be used to measure electrical resistance or impedance. The system 400 includes an EIT unit 401 configured to measure an electrical resistance of the PCD table 302 at a plurality of locations. The EIT unit 401 may include a plurality of probes 402 (e.g., 421 spring-loaded probes) configured to electrically contact a surface 303 of the PCD table 302 of the PDC 300 (shown in FIG. 4), and a plurality of probes 404 (e.g., two probes) to contact the substrate 304 of the PDC sample 300. For example, the probes 402 may be spring-loaded pins (e.g., “pogo” pins used in printed circuit board testing) that make contact with the surface 303 of the PCD table 302. Resistance measurements may be acquired and recorded at a plurality of different locations when 121 of the probes 402 and the probes 404 are used in the system 400. The electrical resistance measurements may then be reconstructed into a 3D electrical conductivity distribution of the PCD table 302 using a reconstruction algorithm.

The system 400 may be configured to make 4-probe DC resistance measurements in the approximate range from 0.1 mΩ to 1Ω on the PDC sample 300. The substrate 304 of the PDC sample 300 may be used as a reference conductor. One of the current probes and one of the voltage probes may be electrically connected to the substrate 304. The 4-probe measurement setup may be completed by multiplexing one of the top surface-contacting probes 402 for current injection and another of the top surface-contacting probes 402 for voltage measurement. Probe locations for the probes 402 are shown in the schematic diagram of FIG. 4 as + shapes and only one location is labeled as 402′ for sake of clarity. Using this probe arrangement, only one large current multiplexer and one large voltage multiplexer may be required.

Referring again to FIG. 3B, the system 400 includes a data acquisition module 406 (e.g., a USB data acquisition) coupled to the EIT unit 401. The data acquisition module 406 includes an analog output 408 that controls the output current of a precision current source 410 in the range from about −150 mA to about +150 mA. The current is routed to one of the 121 sensor probes 402 in contact with the PCD table 302 through a 1:128 current multiplexer 412. For example, the current multiplexer 412 may be built using commercially available 8:1 analog multiplexers with 5Ω maximum series ‘on’ resistance. One of the reference probes 404 contacting the substrate 304 serves as a current sink and is grounded. A respective voltage measurement is taken between the sensor probe 402 selected by the 128:1 voltage multiplexer 424 and the second reference probe 404 contacting the substrate. The voltage is amplified by a programmable-gain instrumentation amplifier 414 and sent to an analog input 416 of the data acquisition module 406. The amplifier 414 may be programmed for gains of, for example, about 1, about 250, about 1000, and about 4000. Unity gain may be used for probe contact resistance measurement. A plurality of digital outputs 418 (e.g., 18 total) from the data acquisition module 406 control all the multiplexers and the amplifier gain of the amplifier 424.

A computer 420 (e.g., a desktop computer) is coupled to or includes the data acquisition module 406 therein. The computer 420 receives the electrical resistance measurements taken by the EIT unit 401 from the analog input 416 of the data acquisition module 406. The computer 420 includes memory 421 storing software thereon containing computer executable instructions configured for reconstructing/calculating/analyzing the electrical conductivity distribution in the PCD table 302 of the PDC sample 300 being tested in accordance with a reconstruction algorithm and one or more processors 423 for executing the computer executable instructions. For example, the one or more processors 423 may control the data acquisition module 406 and process the measured resistance data to reconstruct and analyze the electrical conductivity distribution.

To calibrate the instrument, one or more precision reference resistors 422 are provided, such as 50 mΩ, 20 mΩ and 10 mΩ in an embodiment. A secondary 4:1 voltage multiplexer 425 may be provided to accommodate 4-wire measurements of these reference resistors 422. FIG. 3B shows only one exemplary reference resistor, but the connections of the other reference resistors may be similar.

Referring to FIG. 5, an embodiment for a sensor assembly 500 of the EIT unit 401 including a plurality of probes 402 is illustrated. In an embodiment, the probes 402 may be arranged in a triangular-grid pattern. It should be noted that other sensor-assembly configurations may be used, e.g., for PDC samples having a different size and/or a different configuration.

FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate an embodiment of a sample holder 600 that facilitates placement of the PDC sample 300 to be tested using the system 400 so that reliable electrical contact with the sensor probes 402 and 404 may be established. The main body 602 has a cavity 604 therein configured for holding the PDC sample 300. The PDC sample 300 may be centered and held in place by a resilient member 606 (e.g., a soft O-ring) that is disposed in a groove formed in the main body 602 that encircles the PDC sample 300 and defines part of the cavity 604. The resilient member 606 allows turning the part holder upside-down to place the part on top of the spring-loaded probes 402. The probes 402 are installed in and project outwardly from a base 608 having corresponding holes (e.g., 121 holes) drilled therein. The sensor assembly 600 may include a cap 610 that carries the reference probes 404 that contact the substrate 304 of the PDC sample 300. One or more dowel pins 612 or other alignment structure may extend through sample holder components 602, 608, and 610 to keep them in alignment. Referring specifically to FIG. 6A, the components of the sample holder 600 may be compressed together so that the probes 402 and 404 are in electrical contact with the PDC sample 300 by, for example, thumb screws 614 or other compression mechanism.

Optionally, a conductive paste and/or coating (e.g., a conductive grease containing silver, copper, gold, or combinations thereof) may be applied to the surface 303 of the PCD table 302 to help reduce any occurrence of poor probe contact.

The described system 400 was used to test a variety of PDC samples. Each PDC sample included a cobalt-cemented carbide substrate having a PCD table bonded thereto. The PCD tables were comprised of a plurality of bonded-together diamond grains having cobalt infiltrated from the substrate and disposed interstitially between the bonded-together diamond grains. The electrical conductivity distributions of PCD tables from two PDCs having substantially homogenous PCD tables are shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B. Five slices through the 3D electrical conductivity distribution are shown at varying depths into the PCD table measured from an upper surface of the PCD table (e.g., the upper surface 303 in FIG. 3A). The depth is indicated above each slice. Even though the electrical conductivity is substantially homogeneous, the average electrical conductivity varied from sample to sample, and was found to be strongly influenced by metal-solvent catalyst content.

Additional details of suitable EIT testing systems and additional results are disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/830,878 filed on 6 Jul. 2010 and titled METHODS FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVELY TESTING A POLYCRYSTALLINE DIAMOND ELEMENT, RELATED ELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE TOMOGRAPHY SYSTEMS, AND ROTARY DRILL BIT INCLUDING SELECTIVELY ORIENTED POLYCRYSTALLINE DIAMOND CUTTER, incorporated herein, in its entirety, by this reference. It should be noted that the described EIT testing system is only one suitable system for determining electrical conductivity. Other measurement systems and techniques may be employed.

Embodiments of Methods for Fabricating PCD

As previously discussed, and now discussed in more detail, the PCD may be formed by sintering a mass of a plurality of diamond particles in the presence of a metal-solvent catalyst. The diamond particles may exhibit an average particle size of about 50 μm or less, about 10 μm to about 20 μm, about 15 μm to about 19.5 μm, about 15 μm to about 18 μm, about 10 μm to about 18 μm, or about 5 μm to about 18 μm. In some embodiments, the average particle size of the diamond particles may be about 10 μm or less, such as about 2 μm to about 5 μm or submicron.

In an embodiment, the diamond particles of the mass of diamond particles may comprise a relatively larger size and at least one relatively smaller size. As used herein, the phrases “relatively larger” and “relatively smaller” refer to particle sizes (by any suitable method) that differ by at least a factor of two (e.g., 30 μm and 15 μm). According to various embodiments, the mass of diamond particles may include a portion exhibiting a relatively larger size (e.g., 30 μm, 20 μm, 15 μm, 12 μm, 10 μm, 8 μm) and another portion exhibiting at least one relatively smaller size (e.g., 6 μm, 5 μm, 4 μm, 3 μm, 2 μm, 1 μm, 0.5 μm, less than 0.5 μm, 0.1 μm, less than 0.1 μm). In one embodiment, the mass of diamond particles may include a portion exhibiting a relatively larger size between about 10 μm and about 40 μm and another portion exhibiting a relatively smaller size between about 1 μm and 4 μm. In some embodiments, the mass of diamond particles may comprise three or more different sizes (e.g., one relatively larger size and two or more relatively smaller sizes), without limitation.

It is noted that the as-sintered diamond grain size may differ from the average particle size of the mass of diamond particles prior to sintering due to a variety of different physical processes, such as grain growth, diamond particles fracturing, carbon provided from another carbon source (e.g., dissolved carbon in the metal-solvent catalyst), or combinations of the foregoing. The metal-solvent catalyst (e.g., iron, nickel, cobalt, or alloys thereof) may be provided in particulate form mixed with the diamond particles, as a thin foil or plate placed adjacent to the mass of diamond particles, from a cemented carbide substrate including a metal-solvent catalyst, or combinations of the foregoing.

In order to efficiently sinter the mass of diamond particles, the mass may be enclosed in a pressure transmitting medium, such as a refractory metal can, graphite structure, pyrophyllite, and/or other suitable pressure transmitting structure to form a cell assembly. Examples of suitable gasket materials and cell structures for use in manufacturing PCD are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,338,754 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/545,929, each of which is incorporated herein, in its entirety, by this reference. Another example of a suitable pressure transmitting material is pyrophyllite, which is commercially available from Wonderstone Ltd. of South Africa. In an embodiment, the pressure transmitting material/gasket material may comprise pyrophyllite generally in the shape of a cube having a cavity for receiving the contents to be HPHT processed, with an edge length of the cube being about 1.5 inch to about 2.0 inch, about 1.5 inch to about 1.8 inch, about 1.6 inch to about 1.8 inch, or about 1.75 inch to about 1.8 inch (e.g., about 1.775 inch). The cell assembly, including the pressure transmitting medium and mass of diamond particles therein, is subjected to an HPHT process using an ultra-high pressure press at a temperature of at least about 1000° C. (e.g., about 1100° C. to about 2200° C., or about 1200° C. to about 1450° C.) and a pressure in the pressure transmitting medium of at least about 7.5 GPa (e.g., about 7.5 GPa to about 15 GPa) for a time sufficient to sinter the diamond particles together in the presence of the metal-solvent catalyst and form the PCD comprising bonded diamond grains defining interstitial regions occupied by the metal-solvent catalyst. For example, the pressure in the pressure transmitting medium employed in the HPHT process may be at least about 8.0 GPa, at least about 9.0 GPa, at least about 10.0 GPa, at least about 11.0 GPa, at least about 12.0 GPa, or at least about 14 GPa.

The pressure values employed in the HPHT processes disclosed herein refer to the pressure in the pressure transmitting medium at room temperature (e.g., about 25° C.) with application of pressure using an ultra-high pressure press and not the pressure applied to exterior of the cell assembly. The actual pressure in the pressure transmitting medium at sintering temperature may be slightly higher. The ultra-high pressure press may be calibrated at room temperature by embedding at least one calibration material that changes structure at a known pressure, such as PbTe, thallium, barium, or bismuth in the pressure transmitting medium. Further, optionally, a change in resistance may be measured across the at least one calibration material due to a phase change thereof. For example, PbTe exhibits a phase change at room temperature at about 6.0 GPa and bismuth exhibits a phase change at room temperature at about 7.7 GPa. Examples of suitable pressure calibration techniques are disclosed in G. Rousse, S. Klotz, A. M. Saitta, J. Rodriguez-Carvajal, M. I. McMahon, B. Couzinet, and M. Mezouar, “Structure of the Intermediate Phase of PbTe at High Pressure,” Physical Review B: Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 71, 224116 (2005) and D. L. Decker, W. A. Bassett, L. Merrill, H. T. Hall, and J. D. Barnett, “High-Pressure Calibration: A Critical Review,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 1, 3 (1972).

In an embodiment, a pressure of at least about 7.5 GPa in the pressure transmitting medium may be generated by applying pressure to a cubic high-pressure cell assembly that encloses the mass of diamond particles to be sintered using anvils, with each anvil applying pressure to a different face of the cubic high-pressure assembly. In such an embodiment, a surface area of each anvil face of the anvils may be selectively dimensioned to facilitate application of pressure of at least about 7.5 GPa to the mass of diamond particles being sintered. For example, the surface area of each anvil may be less than about 12.0 cm2 (e.g., about 8 cm2 to about 10 cm2), or greater than 12.0 cm2 such as about 14.7 cm2 to about 17 cm2. In an embodiment, a suitable ratio of an edge length of a face of the uncompressed cubic cell assembly containing the contents prior to being HPHT processed to an edge length of the anvil face may be about 1.20 to about 1.50, such as about 1.3 to about 1.4 (e.g., about 1.31, about 1.32, about 1.33, about 1.34, about 1.35, about 1.36, about 1.37, about 1.38, about 1.39, about 1.31 to about 1.34), greater than about 1.2, greater than about 1.3, or about 1.4 to about 1.5. The anvils may be made from a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide or other material having a sufficient compressive strength to help reduce damage thereto through repetitive use in a high-volume commercial manufacturing environment. Optionally, as an alternative to or in addition to selectively dimensioning the surface area of each anvil face, two or more internal anvils may be embedded in the cubic high-pressure cell assembly to further intensify pressure. For example, the article W. Utsumi, N. Toyama, S. Endo and F. E. Fujita, “X-ray diffraction under ultrahigh pressure generated with sintered diamond anvils,” J. Appl. Phys., 60, 2201 (1986) is incorporated herein, in its entirety, by this reference and discloses that sintered diamond anvils may be embedded in a cubic pressure transmitting medium for intensifying the pressure applied by an ultra-high pressure press to a workpiece also embedded in the cubic pressure transmitting medium.

PDC Embodiments and Methods of Fabricating PDCs

Referring to FIG. 8A, the PCD embodiments may be employed in a PDC for cutting applications, bearing applications, or many other applications. FIG. 8A is a cross-sectional view of the PDC 300 shown in FIG. 3A. The PCD table 302 may be formed of PCD in accordance with any of the PCD embodiments disclosed herein. The PCD table 302 exhibits at least one lateral dimension “d” (e.g., a diameter), and may include an optional chamfer 307 formed between a working surface 303 and a lateral surface 305.

Although FIG. 8A shows the working surface 303 as substantially planar, the working surface 303 may be concave, convex, or another nonplanar geometry. The substrate 304 may be generally cylindrical or another selected configuration, without limitation. Although FIGS. 8A, and 8C show an interfacial surface 308 of the substrate 304 as being substantially planar, the interfacial surface 308 may exhibit a selected nonplanar topography, such as a grooved, ridged, or other nonplanar interfacial surface. The substrate 304 may include, without limitation, cemented carbides, such as tungsten carbide, titanium carbide, chromium carbide, niobium carbide, tantalum carbide, vanadium carbide, or combinations thereof cemented with iron, nickel, cobalt, or alloys thereof. For example, in one embodiment, the substrate 304 comprises cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide.

As illustrated in FIG. 8B, the PCD table 302 shown in FIG. 8A may be acid leached to a selected depth “d” measured from the upper surface 323 and/or the chamfer 327 to form a leached region 325 that is depleted of the metal-solvent catalyst to form a PDC 320. For example, the leached region 325 may generally contour the upper surface 323, the chamfer 327, and the at least one lateral surface 305. The leached region 325 may extend along a selected length of the at least one lateral surface 305. A residual amount of the metal-solvent catalyst may be present in the leached region 325 even after leaching. For example, the metal-solvent catalyst may comprise about 0.8 weight % to about 1.50 weight % and, more particularly, about 0.9 weight % to about 1.2 weight % of the PCD table.

The leaching may be performed in a suitable acid (e.g., aqua regia, nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, or combinations thereof) so that the leached region 325 of the PCD table 302, as shown in FIG. 8B is substantially free of the metal-solvent catalyst. As a result of the metal-solvent catalyst being depleted from the at least partially leached PCD region 325, the PCD table 302 is relatively more thermally stable.

FIG. 8C is an enlarged cross-sectional view of the PCD 300 shown in FIG. 8A. FIG. 8C illustrates the thickness “t” of the PCD table 302 that extends from the working surface 303 to the interfacial surface 308. In an embodiment, the electrical conductivity of the PCD table 302 decreases gradually with distance from the working surface 303 (a region of relatively higher electrical conductivity) to the interfacial surface 308 (a region of relatively lower electrical conductivity), thereby creating an electrical conductivity gradient profile as shown in FIG. 8D.

As illustrated in FIG. 8D, the magnitude of the electrical conductivity is represented by the length of arrows 301, with the greatest magnitude of electrical conductivity at the working surface 303 and the smallest magnitude of electrical conductivity at the interfacial surface 308. This electrical conductivity gradient profile may exist independently of the thickness “t” of the PCD table 302, such as for both thin and thick PCD bodies.

Generally, as the sintering cell pressure that is used to form the PCD increases, the amount of metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD may decrease. For a given PCD microstructure, the amount of metal-solvent catalyst present in the PCD may be correlated with the measured electrical conductivity (σ) of the PCD. Accordingly, a relatively small amount of metal-solvent catalyst within the PCD generally indicates a relatively small value of electrical conductivity.

Electrostatic conductivity measurements may depend on having adequate contact between pin probes (FIG. 5) and residual metal-solvent catalyst in the PCD table. As metal-solvent catalyst content is reduced, it is possible that pin probes may contact more diamond and less metal-solvent catalyst. As the graph in FIG. 9 illustrates, as sintering cell pressure increases from approximately 1 GPa to approximately 8 GPa, and metal-solvent catalyst content decreases, the electrical conductivity of the PCD may also decrease in a relatively non-linear fashion. These values of cell pressure are shown to approach a value of about 8 GPa as values for electrical conductivity reach a substantially constant value with increasing cell pressure. The inventors believe that the decrease in metal-solvent catalyst content under high pressure may be the reason for the non-linearity of conductivity observed at higher cell pressures (e.g., lower cobalt concentrations) as seen in FIG. 9.

As shown in FIG. 10, values for cell pressure and wear volume (the amount of material removed from the PCD table in a VTL test) may be similarly correlated. FIG. 10 illustrates that as cell pressure increases from approximately 1 GPa to approximately 8 GPa, the wear volume is also found to decrease in a relatively non-linear fashion. As values of cell pressure approach a value of approximately 8 GPa, the values for wear volume reach a substantially constant value with increasing cell pressure. The data shown in FIG. 10 may be measured after cutting a fixed volume of rock. As the cell pressure increases, the wear resistance may continue to increase until essentially no wear exists after cutting this fixed volume of rock.

FIG. 11A is a schematic illustration of an embodiment of a method for fabricating the PDC 300 shown in FIGS. 3A and 8A. Referring to FIG. 11, a mass of diamond particles 1100 having any of the above-mentioned average particle sizes and distributions (e.g., an average particle size of about 50 μm or less) is positioned adjacent to the interfacial surface 308 of the substrate 304. As previously discussed, the substrate 304 may include a metal-solvent catalyst. The mass of diamond particles 1100 and substrate 304 may be subjected to an HPHT process using conditions previously described with respect to sintering the PCD embodiments disclosed herein. The PDC 300 so-formed includes the PCD table 302 that comprises PCD, formed of any of the PCD embodiments disclosed herein, integrally formed with the substrate 304 and bonded to the interfacial surface 308 of the substrate 304. If the substrate 304 includes a metal-solvent catalyst, the metal-solvent catalyst may liquefy and infiltrate the mass of diamond particles 1100 to promote growth between adjacent diamond particles of the mass of diamond particles 1100 to form the PCD table 302 comprised of a body of bonded diamond grains having the infiltrated metal-solvent catalyst interstitially disposed between bonded diamond grains. For example, if the substrate 304 is a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate, cobalt from the substrate 304 may be liquefied and infiltrate the mass of diamond particles 1100 to catalyze formation of the PCD table 302.

Employing selectively dimensioned anvil faces and/or internal anvils in the ultra-high pressure press used to process the mass of diamond particles 1100 and substrate 304 enables forming the at least one lateral dimension “d” of the PCD table 302 to be about 0.80 cm or more. Referring again to FIG. 8A, for example, the at least one lateral dimension “d” may be about 0.80 cm to about 3.0 cm and, in some embodiments, about 1.3 cm to about 1.9 cm or about 1.6 cm to about 1.9 cm. A representative volume of the PCD table 302 (or any PCD article of manufacture disclosed herein) formed using the selectively dimensioned anvil faces and/or internal anvils may be at least about 0.050 cm3. For example, the volume may be about 0.25 cm3 to at least about 1.25 cm3 or about 0.1 cm3 to at least about 0.70 cm3. A representative volume for the PDC 300 may be about 0.4 cm3 to at least about 4.6 cm3, such as about 1.1 cm3 to at least about 2.3 cm3.

In other embodiments, a PCD table according to an embodiment may be separately formed using an HPHT sintering process and, subsequently, bonded to the interfacial surface 308 of the substrate 304 by brazing, using a separate HPHT bonding process, or any other suitable joining technique, without limitation. In yet another embodiment, a substrate may be formed by depositing a binderless carbide (e.g., tungsten carbide) via chemical vapor deposition onto the separately formed PCD table.

FIG. 11B is a schematic illustration of another embodiment of a method for fabricating a PDC 1140. FIG. 11B illustrates a layered PCD precursor assembly 1120 of a first layer 1122 of a mass of diamond particles having a fine average particle size (e.g., an average particle size of about 10 μm to about 20 μm, less than about 30 μm, about 20 to about 40 μm, or about 11 μm to about 19.5 μm, greater than 10 μm, about 10 μm to about 20 μm, less than about 20 μm, less than about 25 μm, about 15 μm to about 25 μm, or about 20 μm) adjacent to a second layer 1124 of a mass of diamond particles having a coarse average particle size that is greater than the fine average particle size of the first layer 1122 (e.g., at least about 40 μm, about 40 μm to about 60 μm, about 30 μm to about 50 μm, greater than about 20 μm, greater than about 30 μm, about 20 μm to about 40 μm, about 20 μm to about 50 μm, about 35 μm to about 45 μm, about 40 μm, about 1.5 to about 4 times the fine average particle size, about 2 to about 2.5 times the fine average particle size, etc.). The second layer 1124 may include about 2% to about 8% by weight tungsten, tungsten carbide, sintered tungsten carbide, or combinations thereof. Although the illustrated embodiment of the PDC precursor assembly 1120 only utilizes two layers of diamond particles, two or more, or more than three layers may be employed. In one embodiment, each layer may have a progressively smaller average diamond particle size with distance away from the substrate 1104.

As shown in FIG. 11B, the layered PCD precursor assembly 1120 is positioned adjacent to the interfacial surface 1108 of the substrate 1104. As previously discussed, the substrate 1104 may include a metal-solvent catalyst. The layered PCD precursor assembly 1120 and the substrate 1104 may be subjected to an HPHT process using conditions previously described with respect to sintering the PCD embodiments disclosed herein. The PDC 1140 so-formed includes the PCD table 1130 that comprises PCD that is integrally formed with the substrate 1104 and bonded to the interfacial surface 1108 of the substrate 1104. If the substrate 1104 includes a metal-solvent catalyst, the metal-solvent catalyst may liquefy and infiltrate the layered PCD precursor assembly 1120 to promote growth between adjacent diamond particles of the layered PCD precursor assembly 1120 to form the PCD table 1130 comprised of a body of bonded diamond grains having the infiltrated metal-solvent catalyst interstitially disposed between the bonded diamond grains. For example, if the substrate 1104 is a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate, cobalt from the substrate 1104 may be liquefied and infiltrate the layered PCD precursor assembly 1120 to catalyze formation of the PCD table 1140. Providing a coarser layer of diamond particles (e.g., coarse diamond particle of the second layer 1124) adjacent to the substrate 1104 may prevent or at least reduce braze cracking when the PDC 1140 is brazed to a structure such as bit body of a rotary drill bit.

The PCD precursor assembly 1120 may be subjected to HPHT processing at any of the HPHT conditions disclosed herein. The PCD table 1130 of the PDC 1140 so-formed may exhibit two distinct diamond grain layers, a first layer 1132 adjacent to the substrate including coarse-sized diamond grains exhibiting a coarse-sized average grain size, and a second layer 1134 adjacent to the first layer including fine-sized diamond grains exhibiting a fine-sized average grain size smaller than the coarse-sized average grain size. The average diamond grain sizes may be the same or similar to that of average diamond particle sizes used to form it. For example, an average diamond grain size of the first layer 1132 may be the same or similar to that of the coarse diamond particle size of the second layer 1124 and the average diamond grain size of the second layer 1134 may be the same or similar to that of the fine average diamond particle size of the first layer 1122. As another example, the average diamond grain size of the first layer 1132 may have a coarse average diamond grain size of greater than about 20 μm, greater than about 30 μm, about 20 μm to about 40 μm, about 30 μm to about 40 μm, about 20 μm to about 50 μm, about 40 μm to about 50 μm, or about 35 μm to about 45 μm. The average diamond grain size of the second layer 1134 may have a fine average diamond grain size of greater than about 10 μm, about 10 μm to about 20 μm, less than about 20 μm, less than about 25 μm, about 15 μm to about 25 μm, and about 15 μm to about 20 μm.

In another embodiment, a PCD table may be fabricated according to any of the disclosed embodiments in a first HPHT process, leached to remove substantially all of the metal-solvent catalyst from the interstitial regions between the bonded diamond grains, and subsequently bonded to a substrate in a second HPHT process. In the second HPHT process, an infiltrant from, for example, a cemented carbide substrate may infiltrate into the interstitial regions from which the metal-solvent catalyst was depleted. For example, the infiltrant may be cobalt that is swept-in from a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate. In one embodiment, the first and/or second HPHT process may be performed at a pressure of at least about 7.5 GPa. In one embodiment, the infiltrant may be leached from the infiltrated PCD table using a second acid leaching process following the second HPHT process.

In some embodiments, the pressure employed in the HPHT process used to fabricate the PDC 300 may be sufficient to reduce residual stresses in the PCD table 302 that develop during the HPHT process due to the thermal expansion mismatch between the substrate 304 and the PCD table 302. In such an embodiment, the principal stress measured on the working surface 303 of the PDC 300 may exhibit a value of about −345 MPa to about 0 MPa, such as about −289 MPa. For example, the principal stress measured on the working surface 303 may exhibit a value of about −345 MPa to about 0 MPa. A conventional PDC fabricated using an HPHT process at a pressure below about 7.5 GPa may result in a PCD table thereof exhibiting a principal stress on a working surface thereof of about −1724 MPa to about −414 MPa, such as about −770 MPa.

Residual stress may be measured on the working surface 303 of the PCD table 302 of the PDC 300 as described in T. P. Lin, M. Hood, G. A. Cooper, and R. H. Smith, “Residual stresses in polycrystalline diamond compacts,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 77, 6, 1562-1568 (1994). More particularly, residual strain may be measured with a rosette strain gage bonded to the working surface 303. Such strain may be measured for different levels of removal of the substrate 304 (e.g., as material is removed from the back of the substrate 304). Residual stress may be calculated from the measured residual strain data.

FIG. 12 is a graph of residual principal stress versus substrate thickness that was measured in a PCD table of a PDC fabricated at pressure above about 7.5 GPa in accordance with an embodiment of the invention and a PCD table of a conventionally formed PDC. The residual principal stress was determined using the technique described in the article referenced above by Lin et al. Curve 1210 shows the measured residual principal stress on a working surface of the PDC fabricated at a pressure above about 7.5 GPa. The PDC that was fabricated at a pressure above about 7.5 GPa had a thickness dimension of about 1 mm and the substrate had a thickness dimension of about 7 mm and a diameter of about 13 mm. Curve 1212 shows the measured residual principal stress on a working surface of a PCD table of a conventionally PDC fabricated at pressure below about 7.5 GPa. The PDC that was fabricated at a pressure below about 7.5 GPa had a thickness dimension of about 1 mm and the substrate had a thickness dimension of about 7 mm and a diameter of about 13 mm. The highest absolute value of the residual principal stress occurs with the full substrate length of about 7 mm. As shown by the curves 1210 and 1212, increasing the pressure, employed in the HPHT process used to fabricate a PDC, above about 7.5 GPa may reduce the highest absolute value of the principal residual stress in a PCD table thereof by about 60% relative to a conventionally fabricated PDC. For example, at the full substrate length, the absolute value of the principal residual stress in the PCD table fabricated at a pressure above about 7.5 GPa is about 60% less than the absolute value of the principal residual stress in the PCD table of the conventionally fabricated PDC.

The following working examples provide further detail about the magnetic properties of PCD tables of PDCs fabricated in accordance with the principles of some of the specific embodiments of the invention. The magnetic properties of each PCD table listed in Tables I-IV were tested using a KOERZIMAT CS 1.096 instrument that is commercially available from Foerster Instruments of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The specific magnetic saturation of each PCD table was measured in accordance with ASTM B886-03 (2008) and the coercivity of each PCD table was measured using ASTM B887-03 (2008)e1 using a KOERZIMAT CS 1.096 instrument. The amount of cobalt-based metal-solvent catalyst in the tested PCD tables was determined using energy dispersive spectroscopy and Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy. The specific magnetic saturation constant of the cobalt-based metal-solvent catalyst in the tested PCD tables was determined to be about 201 G·cm3/g using an iterative analysis as previously described. When a value of 201 G·cm3/g was used for the specific magnetic saturation constant of the cobalt-based metal-solvent catalyst, the calculated amount of the cobalt-based metal-solvent catalyst in the tested PCD tables using the analysis software of the KOERZIMAT CS 1.096 instrument substantially matched the measurements using energy dispersive spectroscopy and Rutherford spectroscopy.

Table I below lists PCD tables that were fabricated in accordance with the principles of certain embodiments of the invention discussed above. Each PCD table was fabricated by placing a mass of diamond particles having the listed average diamond particle size adjacent to a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate in a niobium container, placing the container in a high-pressure cell medium, and subjecting the high-pressure cell medium and the container therein to an HPHT process using an HPHT cubic press to form a PCD table bonded to the substrate. The surface area of each anvil of the HPHT press and the hydraulic line pressure used to drive the anvils were selected so that the sintering pressure was at least about 7.8 GPa. The temperature of the HPHT process was about 1400° C. and the sintering pressure was at least about 7.8 GPa. The sintering pressures listed in Table I refer to the pressure in the high-pressure cell medium at room temperature, and the actual sintering pressures at the sintering temperature are believed to be greater. After the HPHT process, the PCD table was removed from the substrate by grinding away the substrate. However, the substrate may also be removed using electro-discharge machining or another suitable method.

TABLE I Selected Magnetic Properties of PCD Tables Fabricated According to Embodiments of the Invention Average Diamond Sintering Specific Magnetic Specific Particle Size Pressure Saturation Calculated Coercivity Permeability (μm) (GPa) (G · cm3/g) Co wt % (Oe) (G · cm3/g · Oe) 1 20 7.8 11.15 5.549 130.2 0.08564 2 19 7.8 11.64 5.792 170.0 0.06847 3 19 7.8 11.85 5.899 157.9 0.07505 4 19 7.8 11.15 5.550 170.9 0.06524 5 19 7.8 11.43 5.689 163.6 0.06987 6 19 7.8 10.67 5.150 146.9 0.07263 7 19 7.8 10.76 5.357 152.3 0.07065 8 19 7.8 10.22 5.087 145.2 0.07039 9 19 7.8 10.12 5.041 156.6 0.06462 10 19 7.8 10.72 5.549 137.1 0.07819 11 11 7.8 12.52 6.229 135.3 0.09254 12 11 7.8 12.78 6.362 130.5 0.09793 13 11 7.8 12.69 6.315 134.6 0.09428 14 11 7.8 13.20 6.569 131.6 0.1003

Table II below lists conventional PCD tables that were fabricated. Each PCD table listed in Table II was fabricated by placing a mass of diamond particles having the listed average diamond particle size adjacent to a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate in a niobium container, placing the container in a high-pressure cell medium, and subjecting the high-pressure cell medium and the container therein to an HPHT process using an HPHT cubic press to form a PCD table bonded to the substrate. The surface area of each anvil of the HPHT press and the hydraulic line pressure used to drive the anvils were selected so that the sintering pressure was about 4.6 GPa. Except for samples 15, 16, 18, and 19, which were subjected to a temperature of about 1430° C., the temperature of the HPHT process was about 1400° C. and the sintering pressure was about 4.6 GPa. The sintering pressures listed in Table II refer to the pressure in the high-pressure cell medium at room temperature. After the HPHT process, the PCD table was removed from the cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate by grinding away the cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate.

TABLE II Selected Magnetic Properties of Several Conventional PCD Tables Average Diamond Sintering Specific Magnetic Specific Particle Size Pressure Saturation Calculated Coercivity Permeability (μm) (GPa) (G · cm3/g) Co wt % (Oe) (G · cm3/g · Oe) 15 20 4.61 19.30 9.605 94.64 0.2039 16 20 4.61 19.52 9.712 96.75 0.2018 17 20 4.61 19.87 9.889 94.60 0.2100 18 20 5.08 18.61 9.260 94.94 0.1960 19 20 5.08 18.21 9.061 100.4 0.1814 20 20 5.86 16.97 8.452 108.3 0.1567 21 20 4.61 17.17 8.543 102.0 0.1683 22 20 4.61 17.57 8.745 104.9 0.1675 23 20 5.08 16.10 8.014 111.2 0.1448 24 20 5.08 16.79 8.357 107.1 0.1568

As shown in Tables I and II, the conventional PCD tables listed in Table II exhibit a higher cobalt content therein than the PCD tables listed in Table I as indicated by the relatively higher specific magnetic saturation values. Additionally, the conventional PCD tables listed in Table II exhibit a lower coercivity indicative of a relatively greater mean free path between diamond grains, and thus may indicate relatively less diamond-to-diamond bonding between the diamond grains. Thus, the PCD tables according to examples of the invention listed in Table I may exhibit significantly less cobalt therein and a lower mean free path between diamond grains than the PCD tables listed in Table II.

Table III below lists conventional PCD tables that were obtained from PDCs. Each PCD table listed in Table III was separated from a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate bonded thereto by grinding.

TABLE III Selected Magnetic Properties of Several Conventional PCD Tables Specific Magnetic Specific Saturation Calculated Coercivity Permeability (G · cm3/g) Co wt % (Oe) (G · cm3/g · Oe) 25 17.23 8.572 140.4 0.1227 26 16.06 7.991 150.2 0.1069 27 15.19 7.560 146.1 0.1040 28 17.30 8.610 143.2 0.1208 29 17.13 8.523 152.1 0.1126 30 17.00 8.458 142.5 0.1193 31 17.08 8.498 147.2 0.1160 32 16.10 8.011 144.1 0.1117

Table IV below lists conventional PCD tables that were obtained from PDCs. Each PCD table listed in Table IV was separated from a cobalt-cemented tungsten carbide substrate bonded thereto by grinding the substrate away. Each PCD table listed in Table IV and tested had a leached region from which cobalt was depleted and an unleached region in which cobalt is interstitially disposed between bonded diamond grains. The leached region was not removed. However, to determine the specific magnetic saturation and the coercivity of the unleached region of the PCD table having metal-solvent catalyst occupying interstitial regions therein, the leached region may be ground away so that only the unleached region of the PCD table remains. It is expected that the leached region causes the specific magnetic saturation to be lower and the coercivity to be higher than if the leached region was removed and the unleached region was tested.

TABLE IV Selected Magnetic Properties of Several Conventional Leached PCD Tables Specific Magnetic Specific Saturation Calculated Coercivity Permeability (G · cm3/g) Co wt % (Oe) (G · cm3/g · Oe) 33 17.12 8.471 143.8 0.1191 34 13.62 6.777 137.3 0.09920 35 15.87 7.897 140.1 0.1133 36 12.95 6.443 145.5 0.0890 37 13.89 6.914 142.0 0.09782 38 13.96 6.946 146.9 0.09503 39 13.67 6.863 133.8 0.1022 40 12.80 6.369 146.3 0.08749

As shown in Tables I, III, and IV, the conventional PCD tables of Tables III and IV exhibit a higher cobalt content therein than the PCD tables listed in Table I as indicated by the relatively higher specific magnetic saturation values. This is believed by the inventors to be a result of the PCD tables listed in Tables III and IV being formed by sintering diamond particles having a relatively greater percentage of fine diamond particles than the diamond particle formulations used to fabricate the PCD tables listed in Table I.

A similar correlation between higher cobalt content and increased electrical conductivity properties of PCD tables has also been observed. Sensitivity of electrical conductivity measurements of PDC diamond tables of a given PCD microstructure may provide an excellent method for estimation and imaging of metal content in the diamond table. Such types of estimates are sensitive to changes in bulk average metal-solvent content and local changes in the metal-solvent content, allowing for a sensitive estimation of both metal content and cutting performance.

Referring back to FIGS. 9 and 10, electrical conductivity trends with metal-solvent content suggest that lowering the metal-solvent content, and thus the electrical conductivity, increases performance of a PDC. In fact, relatively lowered metal-solvent content in the PDC appears to substantially influence cutting performance. Therefore, it follows that the electrical conductivity, also dependent on metal-solvent catalyst content, may also be used as a quality characteristic for evaluating PDC cutting performance. For example, a PCD cutting element with electrical conductivities below about 1200 S/m (in an unleached region of PCD) have been found to increase cutting performance.

Embodiments of Applications for PCD and PDCs

The disclosed PCD and PDC embodiments may be used in a number of different applications including, but not limited to, use in a rotary drill bit (FIGS. 13 and 14), a thrust-bearing apparatus (FIG. 15), a radial bearing apparatus (FIG. 16), a subterranean drilling system (FIG. 17), and a wire-drawing die (FIG. 18). The various applications discussed above are merely some examples of applications in which the PCD and PDC embodiments may be used. Other applications are contemplated, such as employing the disclosed PCD and PDC embodiments in friction stir welding tools.

FIG. 13 is an isometric view and FIG. 14 is a top elevation view of an embodiment of a rotary drill bit 800. The rotary drill bit 800 includes at least one PDC configured according to any of the previously described PDC embodiments. The rotary drill bit 800 comprises a bit body 802 that includes radially and longitudinally extending blades 804 with leading faces 806, and a threaded pin connection 808 for connecting the bit body 802 to a drilling string. The bit body 802 defines a leading end structure for drilling into a subterranean formation by rotation about a longitudinal axis 810 and application of weight-on-bit. At least one PDC cutting element, configured according to any of the previously described PDC embodiments (e.g., the PDC 300 shown in FIG. 3A), may be affixed to the bit body 802. With reference to FIG. 14, a plurality of PDCs 812 are secured to the blades 804. For example, each PDC 812 may include a PCD table 814 bonded to a substrate 816. More generally, the PDCs 812 may comprise any PDC disclosed herein, without limitation. In addition, if desired, in some embodiments, a number of the PDCs 812 may be conventional in construction. Also, circumferentially adjacent blades 804 define so-called junk slots 818 therebetween, as known in the art. Additionally, the rotary drill bit 800 may include a plurality of nozzle cavities 820 for communicating drilling fluid from the interior of the rotary drill bit 800 to the PDCs 812.

FIGS. 13 and 14 merely depict an embodiment of a rotary drill bit that employs at least one cutting element comprising a PDC fabricated and structured in accordance with the disclosed embodiments, without limitation. The rotary drill bit 800 is used to represent any number of earth-boring tools or drilling tools, including, for example, core bits, roller-cone bits, fixed-cutter bits, eccentric bits, bicenter bits, reamers, reamer wings, or any other downhole tool including PDCs, without limitation.

The PCD and/or PDCs disclosed herein (e.g., the PDC 300 shown in FIG. 3A) may also be utilized in applications other than rotary drill bits. For example, the disclosed PDC embodiments may be used in thrust-bearing assemblies, radial bearing assemblies, wire-drawing dies, artificial joints, machining elements, and heat sinks.

FIG. 15 is an isometric cut-away view of an embodiment of a thrust-bearing apparatus 900, which may utilize any of the disclosed PDC embodiments as bearing elements. The thrust-bearing apparatus 900 includes respective thrust-bearing assemblies 902. Each thrust-bearing assembly 902 includes an annular support ring 904 that may be fabricated from a material, such as carbon steel, stainless steel, or another suitable material. Each support ring 904 includes a plurality of recesses (not labeled) that receive a corresponding bearing element 906. Each bearing element 906 may be mounted to a corresponding support ring 904 within a corresponding recess by brazing, press-fitting, using fasteners, or another suitable mounting technique. One or more, or all of bearing elements 906 may be configured according to any of the disclosed PDC embodiments. For example, each bearing element 906 may include a substrate 908 and a PCD table 910, with the PCD table 910 including a bearing surface 912.

In use, the bearing surfaces 912 of one of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902 bear against the opposing bearing surfaces 912 of the other one of the bearing assemblies 902. For example, one of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902 may be operably coupled to a shaft to rotate therewith and may be termed a “rotor.” The other one of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902 may be held stationary and may be termed a “stator.”

FIG. 16 is an isometric cut-away view of an embodiment of a radial bearing apparatus 1000, which may utilize any of the disclosed PDC embodiments as bearing elements. The radial bearing apparatus 1000 includes an inner race 1002 positioned generally within an outer race 1004. The outer race 1004 includes a plurality of bearing elements 1006 affixed thereto that have respective bearing surfaces 1008. The inner race 1002 also includes a plurality of bearing elements 1010 affixed thereto that have respective bearing surfaces 1012. One or more, or all of the bearing elements 1006 and 1010 may be configured according to any of the PDC embodiments disclosed herein. The inner race 1002 is positioned generally within the outer race 1004, and thus the inner race 1002 and outer race 1004 may be configured so that the bearing surfaces 1008 and 1012 may at least partially contact one another and move relative to each other as the inner race 1002 and outer race 1004 rotate relative to each other during use.

The radial bearing apparatus 1000 may be employed in a variety of mechanical applications. For example, so-called “roller-cone” rotary drill bits may benefit from a radial-bearing apparatus disclosed herein. More specifically, the inner race 1002 may be mounted to a spindle of a roller cone and the outer race 1004 may be mounted to an inner bore formed within a cone and such an outer race 1004 and inner race 1002 may be assembled to form a radial bearing apparatus.

Referring to FIG. 17, the thrust-bearing apparatus 900 and/or radial bearing apparatus 1000 may be incorporated in a subterranean drilling system. FIG. 17 is a schematic isometric cut-away view of a subterranean drilling system 1100 that includes at least one of the thrust-bearing apparatuses 900 shown in FIG. 15 according to another embodiment. The subterranean drilling system 1100 includes a housing 1102 enclosing a downhole drilling motor 1104 (i.e., a motor, turbine, or any other device capable of rotating an output shaft) that is operably connected to an output shaft 1106. A first thrust-bearing apparatus 9001 (FIG. 15) is operably coupled to the downhole drilling motor 1104. A second thrust-bearing apparatus 9002 (FIG. 15) is operably coupled to the output shaft 1106. A rotary drill bit 1108 configured to engage a subterranean formation and drill a borehole is connected to the output shaft 1106. The rotary drill bit 1108 is shown as a roller-cone bit including a plurality of roller cones 1110. However, other embodiments may utilize different types of rotary drill bits, such as a so-called “fixed-cutter” drill bit shown in FIGS. 13 and 14. As the borehole is drilled, pipe sections may be connected to the subterranean drilling system 1100 to form a drill string capable of progressively drilling the borehole to a greater depth within the earth.

A first one of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902 of the thrust-bearing apparatus 9001 is configured as a stator that does not rotate and a second one of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902 of the thrust-bearing apparatus 9001 is configured as a rotor that is attached to the output shaft 1106 and rotates with the output shaft 1106. The on-bottom thrust generated when the drill bit 1108 engages the bottom of the borehole may be carried, at least in part, by the first thrust-bearing apparatus 9001. A first one of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902 of the thrust-bearing apparatus 9002 is configured as a stator that does not rotate and a second one of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902 of the thrust-bearing apparatus 9002 is configured as a rotor that is attached to the output shaft 1106 and rotates with the output shaft 1106. Fluid flow through the power section of the downhole drilling motor 1104 may cause what is commonly referred to as “off-bottom thrust,” which may be carried, at least in part, by the second thrust-bearing apparatus 9002.

In operation, drilling fluid may be circulated through the downhole drilling motor 1104 to generate torque and effect rotation of the output shaft 1106 and the rotary drill bit 1108 attached thereto so that a borehole may be drilled. A portion of the drilling fluid may also be used to lubricate opposing bearing surfaces of the bearing elements 906 of the thrust-bearing assemblies 902.

FIG. 18 is a side cross-sectional view of an embodiment of a wire-drawing die 1200 that employs a PDC 1202 fabricated in accordance with the teachings described herein. The PDC 1202 includes an inner, annular PCD region 1204 comprising any of the PCD tables described herein that is bonded to an outer cylindrical substrate 1206 that may be made from the same materials as the substrate 304 shown in FIG. 3A. The PCD region 1204 also includes a die cavity 1208 formed therethrough configured for receiving and shaping a wire being drawn. The wire-drawing die 1200 may be encased in a housing (e.g., a stainless steel housing), which is not shown, to allow for handling.

In use, a wire 1210 of a diameter “d1” is drawn through die cavity 1208 along a wire-drawing axis 1212 to reduce the diameter of the wire 1210 to a reduced diameter “d2.”

While various aspects and embodiments have been disclosed herein, other aspects and embodiments are contemplated. The various aspects and embodiments disclosed herein are for purposes of illustration and are not intended to be limiting. Additionally, the words “including,” “having,” and variants thereof (e.g., “includes” and “has”) as used herein, including the claims, shall be open ended and have the same meaning as the word “comprising” and variants thereof (e.g., “comprise” and “comprises”).

Claims

1. A polycrystalline diamond compact, comprising:

a polycrystalline diamond table, at least an unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table including: a plurality of diamond grains directly bonded together via diamond-to-diamond bonding to define a plurality of interstitial regions, the plurality of diamond grains exhibiting an average grain size of about 10 μm to about 50 μm; a catalyst occupying at least a portion of the plurality of interstitial regions; a portion of the plurality of diamond grains and the metal-solvent catalyst collectively exhibit a coercivity of about 115 Oe to about 250 Oe; the portion of the plurality of diamond grains and the metal-solvent catalyst collectively exhibiting a specific magnetic saturation of about 5 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g; wherein the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits an average electrical conductivity of about 25 S/m to about 1200 S/m; wherein the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits at least one of a Gratio of at least about 4.0×106 or a thermal stability, as determined by distance cut, prior to failure in a vertical lathe test, of at least about 1300 m; and
a substrate bonded to the polycrystalline diamond table.

2. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the average grain size of the plurality of diamond grains is about 10 μm to about 30 μm.

3. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the average grain size of the plurality of diamond grains is about 10 μm to about 18 μm.

4. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the average electrical conductivity of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is about 25 S/m to about 1000 S/m.

5. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the average electrical conductivity of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is about 25 S/m to about 750 S/m.

6. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the average electrical conductivity of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is about 100 S/m to about 500 S/m.

7. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits a thermal stability, as determined by a distance cut, prior to failure, in a vertical lathe test of about 1300 m to about 3950 m.

8. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 7, wherein the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits the Gratio of at least 4.0×106.

9. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 8, wherein the Gratio of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is greater than about 15.0×106.

10. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the coercivity of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is about 115 Oe to about 175 Oe.

11. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the specific magnetic saturation of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is about 10 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g.

12. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits the thermal stability, as determined by a distance cut, prior to failure, in a vertical lathe test of at least about 1300 m.

13. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits a coercivity of about 155 Oe to about 175 Oe, a specific magnetic saturation of about 10 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g, and the average electrical conductivity of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is about 25 S/m to about 750 S/m.

14. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits a coercivity of about 130 Oe to about 160 Oe, and the average electrical conductivity of the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table is about 50 S/m to about 750 S/m.

15. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1, wherein the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits a specific permeability of less than about 0.10 G·cm3/g·Oe.

16. A rotary drill bit, comprising:

a bit body including a leading end structure configured to facilitate drilling a subterranean formation; and
a plurality of cutting elements mounted to the bit body, at least one of the plurality of cutting elements including the polycrystalline diamond compact according to claim 1.

17. A polycrystalline diamond compact, comprising:

a polycrystalline diamond table, at least an unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table including: a plurality of diamond grains directly bonded together via diamond-to-diamond bonding to define a plurality of interstitial regions, the plurality of diamond grains exhibiting an average grain size of about 30 μm or less; a catalyst occupying at least a portion of the plurality of interstitial regions; an average electrical conductivity of about 25 S/m to about 1200 S/m; a coercivity of about 115 Oe to about 250 Oe; a specific magnetic saturation of about 5 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g; and
a substrate bonded to the polycrystalline diamond table; and a Gratio of at least about 4.0×106.

18. A rotary drill bit, comprising:

a bit body including a leading end structure configured to facilitate drilling a subterranean formation; and
a plurality of cutting elements mounted to the bit body, at least one of the plurality of cutting elements including the polycrystalline diamond compact according to claim 17.

19. A polycrystalline diamond compact, comprising:

a polycrystalline diamond table sintered exhibiting one or more characteristics of being sintered at a cell pressure of at least about 7.5 GPa, at least an unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table including: a plurality of diamond grains bonded together via diamond-to-diamond bonding to define a plurality of interstitial regions, the plurality of diamond grains exhibiting an average grain size of about 10 μm to about 18 μm; and a catalyst including cobalt, the catalyst occupying at least a portion of the plurality of interstitial regions; an average electrical conductivity of about 25 S/m to about 1200 S/m; a coercivity of about 115 Oe to about 175 Oe; a specific magnetic saturation of about 10 G·cm3/g to about 15 G·cm3/g or less; a specific permeability less than about 0.10 G·cm3/g·Oe; and a thermal stability, as determined by distance cut, prior to failure in a vertical lathe test, of at least about 1300 m; and
a substrate bonded to the polycrystalline diamond table along an interfacial surface.

20. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 19, wherein the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table exhibits a Gratio of at least about 4.0×106.

21. A rotary drill bit, comprising:

a bit body including a leading end structure configured to facilitate drilling a subterranean formation; and
a plurality of cutting elements mounted to the bit body, at least one of the plurality of cutting elements including the polycrystalline diamond compact according to claim 19.

22. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 17 wherein at least the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table includes a catalyst content of the catalyst of about 1 weight % to about 7.5 weight %.

23. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 20 wherein at least the unleached portion of the polycrystalline diamond table includes a catalyst content of the catalyst of about 3 weight % to about 7.5 weight %.

24. The polycrystalline diamond compact of claim 1 wherein the plurality of diamond grains exhibit single mode grain size distribution.

Referenced Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
2349577 May 1944 Dean
3101260 August 1963 Cheney
3141746 July 1964 De Lai
3149411 September 1964 Smiley
3293012 December 1966 Smiley
3372010 March 1968 Parsons
3574580 April 1971 Stromberg et al.
3743489 July 1973 Wentorf
3745623 July 1973 Wentorf et al.
3767371 October 1973 Wentorf
3786552 January 1974 Saito
3829544 August 1974 Hall
3909647 September 1975 Peterson
3918219 November 1975 Wentorf, Jr.
4009027 February 22, 1977 Naidich
4016736 April 12, 1977 Lynn
4018576 April 19, 1977 Lowder
4042673 August 16, 1977 Strong
4063909 December 20, 1977 Mitchell
4082185 April 4, 1978 Strong
4084942 April 18, 1978 Fernandez-Villalobos
4171339 October 16, 1979 De Vries
4191735 March 4, 1980 Hudson
4224380 September 23, 1980 Bovenkerk et al.
4259090 March 31, 1981 Bovenkerk
4268276 May 19, 1981 Bovenkerk
4274900 June 23, 1981 Mueller
4288248 September 8, 1981 Bovenkerk
4301134 November 17, 1981 Strong
4303442 December 1, 1981 Akio
4311490 January 19, 1982 Bovenkerk et al.
4333902 June 8, 1982 Akio
4403015 September 6, 1983 Nakai et al.
4410054 October 18, 1983 Nagel et al.
4425315 January 10, 1984 Tsuji et al.
4440573 April 3, 1984 Ishizuka
4460382 July 17, 1984 Ohno
4468138 August 28, 1984 Nagel
4525178 June 25, 1985 Hall
4525179 June 25, 1985 Gigl
4534773 August 13, 1985 Phaal
4560014 December 24, 1985 Geczy
4572722 February 25, 1986 Dyer
4604106 August 5, 1986 Hall et al.
4610600 September 9, 1986 Bleier
4610699 September 9, 1986 Yazu et al.
4636253 January 13, 1987 Nakai et al.
4643741 February 17, 1987 Yu et al.
4676124 June 30, 1987 Fischer
4692418 September 8, 1987 Boecker
4694918 September 22, 1987 Hall
4738322 April 19, 1988 Hall et al.
4729440 March 8, 1988 Hall
4766040 August 23, 1988 Hillert et al.
4766027 August 23, 1988 Hillert
4778486 October 18, 1988 Csillag et al.
4783245 November 8, 1988 Eiji
4797326 January 10, 1989 Csillag
4802895 February 7, 1989 Burnard
4811801 March 14, 1989 Salesky et al.
4828611 May 9, 1989 Nakai et al.
4871377 October 3, 1989 Frushour
4907377 March 13, 1990 Csillag et al.
4913247 April 3, 1990 Jones
4940180 July 10, 1990 Martell
4944772 July 31, 1990 Cho
4985051 January 15, 1991 Ringwood
4992082 February 12, 1991 Drawl
5000273 March 19, 1991 Horton
5009673 April 23, 1991 Cho
5011514 April 30, 1991 Cho
5016718 May 21, 1991 Tandberg et al.
5022894 June 11, 1991 Vagarali
5032147 July 16, 1991 Frushour
5045092 September 3, 1991 Keshavan
5049164 September 17, 1991 Horton
5057124 October 15, 1991 Cerceau
5092687 March 3, 1992 Hall
5116568 May 26, 1992 Sung
5120327 June 9, 1992 Dennis
5127923 July 7, 1992 Bunting
5135061 August 4, 1992 Newton, Jr. et al.
5151107 September 29, 1992 Cho et al.
5154245 October 13, 1992 Waldenstrom et al.
5158148 October 27, 1992 Keshavan
5173091 December 22, 1992 Marek
5180022 January 19, 1993 Brady
5217154 June 8, 1993 Elwood
5304342 April 19, 1994 Hall et al.
5326380 July 5, 1994 Yao
5348109 September 20, 1994 Griffin
5351772 October 4, 1994 Smith
5355969 October 18, 1994 Hardy et al.
5364192 November 15, 1994 Damm et al.
5368398 November 29, 1994 Damm et al.
5370195 December 6, 1994 Keshavan et al.
5460233 October 24, 1995 Meany et al.
5469927 November 28, 1995 Griffin
5480233 January 2, 1996 Cunningham
5500289 March 19, 1996 Gavish
5544713 August 13, 1996 Dennis
5560754 October 1, 1996 Johnson
5582429 December 10, 1996 Isaacson
5601477 February 11, 1997 Bunting
5605199 February 25, 1997 Newton
5617997 April 8, 1997 Kobayashi
5645617 July 8, 1997 Frushour
5660075 August 26, 1997 Johnson
5709907 January 20, 1998 Battaglia et al.
5711702 January 27, 1998 Devlin
5722449 March 3, 1998 Nguyen
5740874 April 21, 1998 Matthias
5752155 May 12, 1998 Gates, Jr. et al.
5769176 June 23, 1998 Sumiya et al.
5816347 October 6, 1998 Dennis et al.
5819862 October 13, 1998 Matthais
5848348 December 8, 1998 Dennis
5871060 February 16, 1999 Jensen
5875862 March 2, 1999 Jurewicz et al.
5876859 March 2, 1999 Saxelby
5889219 March 30, 1999 Moriguchi et al.
5954147 September 21, 1999 Overstreet
5957228 September 28, 1999 Yorston et al.
5976707 November 2, 1999 Grab
5980982 November 9, 1999 Degawa
6003623 December 21, 1999 Miess
6044920 April 4, 2000 Massa et al.
6054693 April 25, 2000 Barmatz
6056911 May 2, 2000 Griffin
6068913 May 30, 2000 Cho et al.
6090343 July 18, 2000 Kear et al.
6132675 October 17, 2000 Corrigan et al.
6145607 November 14, 2000 Griffin et al.
6165616 December 26, 2000 Lemelson
6187068 February 13, 2001 Frushour et al.
6189634 February 20, 2001 Bertagnolli et al.
6196340 March 6, 2001 Jensen et al.
6202770 March 20, 2001 Jurewicz
6202772 March 20, 2001 Eyre
6209429 April 3, 2001 Urso
6220375 April 24, 2001 Butcher et al.
6227318 May 8, 2001 Siracki
6241035 June 5, 2001 Portwood
6258139 July 10, 2001 Jensen
6260638 July 17, 2001 Massa et al.
6265884 July 24, 2001 Menashi
6270548 August 7, 2001 Campbell
6272753 August 14, 2001 Packer
6290008 September 18, 2001 Portwood et al.
6302225 October 16, 2001 Yoshida
6330924 December 18, 2001 Hall
6338754 January 15, 2002 Cannon et al.
6342301 January 29, 2002 Yoshida et al.
6344149 February 5, 2002 Oles
6390181 May 21, 2002 Hall
6405814 June 18, 2002 Eyre
6408959 June 25, 2002 Bertagnolli et al.
6410085 June 25, 2002 Griffin
6435058 August 20, 2002 Matthias
6443248 September 3, 2002 Yong et al.
6460637 October 8, 2002 Siracki et al.
6481511 November 19, 2002 Matthias
6488106 December 3, 2002 Dourfaye
6521353 February 18, 2003 Majagi et al.
6544308 April 8, 2003 Griffin
6562462 May 13, 2003 Griffin
6585064 July 1, 2003 Griffin
6589640 July 8, 2003 Griffin
6592985 July 15, 2003 Griffin et al.
6601662 August 5, 2003 Matthias
6655234 December 2, 2003 Scott
6793214 September 21, 2004 Griffin
6749033 June 15, 2004 Griffin
6793681 September 21, 2004 Pope
6797236 September 28, 2004 Stoschek
6797326 September 28, 2004 Griffin
6846341 January 25, 2005 Middlemiss
6858080 February 22, 2005 Linares
6861098 March 1, 2005 Griffin
6861137 March 1, 2005 Griffin
6878447 April 12, 2005 Griffin
6884499 April 26, 2005 Penich et al.
6892836 May 17, 2005 Eyre
6913633 July 5, 2005 Fries et al.
6915866 July 12, 2005 Middlemiss
6987318 January 17, 2006 Sung
6991049 January 31, 2006 Eyre
7033408 April 25, 2006 Fries et al.
7060641 June 13, 2006 Qian
7108598 September 19, 2006 Galloway
7216661 May 15, 2007 Welty et al.
7316279 January 8, 2008 Wiseman et al.
7350601 April 1, 2008 Belnap et al.
7377341 May 27, 2008 Middlemiss
7384821 June 10, 2008 Sung
7435478 October 14, 2008 Keshavan
7462003 December 9, 2008 Middlemiss
7473287 January 6, 2009 Belnap
7475744 January 13, 2009 Pope
7493972 February 24, 2009 Schmidt et al.
7516804 April 14, 2009 Vail
7517589 April 14, 2009 Eyre
7543662 June 9, 2009 Belnap et al.
7549912 June 23, 2009 Liang et al.
7552782 June 30, 2009 Sexton et al.
7553350 June 30, 2009 Kuroda et al.
7559695 July 14, 2009 Sexton et al.
7559965 July 14, 2009 Oh
7569176 August 4, 2009 Pope
7575805 August 18, 2009 Achilles et al.
7608333 October 27, 2009 Eyre
7628234 December 8, 2009 Middlemiss
7635035 December 22, 2009 Bertagnolli
7647933 January 19, 2010 Morgenstern
7647993 January 19, 2010 Middlemiss
7681669 March 23, 2010 Cannon
7694757 April 13, 2010 Keshavan
7726421 June 1, 2010 Middlemiss
7730977 June 8, 2010 Achilles
7740673 June 22, 2010 Eyre
7753143 July 13, 2010 Miess
7754333 July 13, 2010 Eyre
7757790 July 20, 2010 Schmidt
7757791 July 20, 2010 Belnap et al.
7757792 July 20, 2010 Shamburger
7828088 November 9, 2010 Middlemiss
7836981 November 23, 2010 Zhang et al.
7841428 November 30, 2010 Bertagnolli
7845438 December 7, 2010 Vail
7866418 January 11, 2011 Bertagnolli et al.
7883775 February 8, 2011 Kazahaya et al.
7942219 May 17, 2011 Keshavan
7980334 July 19, 2011 Voronin
8002859 August 23, 2011 Griffo
8020645 September 20, 2011 Bertagnolli et al.
8034136 October 11, 2011 Sani
8043533 October 25, 2011 Tajima et al.
8056650 November 15, 2011 Middlemiss
8066087 November 29, 2011 Griffo
8069937 December 6, 2011 Mukhopadhyay
8071173 December 6, 2011 Sani
8080071 December 20, 2011 Vai
8080074 December 20, 2011 Sani
8147572 April 3, 2012 Eyre
8158258 April 17, 2012 Bertagnolli et al.
8197936 June 12, 2012 Keshavan
8236074 August 7, 2012 Bertagnolli et al.
8297382 October 30, 2012 Bertagnolli et al.
8461832 June 11, 2013 Bertagnolli et al.
8616306 December 31, 2013 Bertagnolli et al.
8627905 January 14, 2014 Eyre et al.
8727046 May 20, 2014 Miess et al.
8766628 July 1, 2014 Bertagnolli et al.
9140072 September 22, 2015 Nelms et al.
9315881 April 19, 2016 Bertagnolli et al.
9435160 September 6, 2016 Gonzalez et al.
9459236 October 4, 2016 Bertagnolli et al.
9623542 April 18, 2017 Miess et al.
9932274 April 3, 2018 Bertagnolli et al.
10287822 May 14, 2019 Bertagnolli et al.
10350730 July 16, 2019 Miess et al.
10507565 December 17, 2019 Bertagnolli et al.
10703681 July 7, 2020 Bertagnolli et al.
10805502 October 13, 2020 Reyes et al.
20010004946 June 28, 2001 Jensen
20010040053 November 15, 2001 Beuershausen
20020029909 March 14, 2002 Griffo
20020029910 March 14, 2002 Heinrich et al.
20020034631 March 21, 2002 Griffin
20020034632 March 21, 2002 Griffen
20020037200 March 28, 2002 Boyce
20020071729 June 13, 2002 Middlemiss et al.
20020079140 June 27, 2002 Eyre
20030019333 January 30, 2003 Scott
20030037964 February 27, 2003 Sinor
20030079918 May 1, 2003 Eyre
20030191533 October 9, 2003 Dixon
20040062928 April 1, 2004 Raghavan
20040111159 June 10, 2004 Pope
20040112650 June 17, 2004 Moseley
20040140132 July 22, 2004 Middlemiss
20040155096 August 12, 2004 Zimmerman
20050044800 March 3, 2005 Hall
20050050801 March 10, 2005 Cho et al.
20050110187 May 26, 2005 Pope
20050117984 June 2, 2005 Eason
20050129950 June 16, 2005 Griffin
20050139397 June 30, 2005 Achilles et al.
20050189443 September 1, 2005 Taylor
20050210755 September 29, 2005 Cho et al.
20050211475 September 29, 2005 Mirchandani
20050230156 October 20, 2005 Belnap
20050247492 November 10, 2005 Shen et al.
20050262774 December 1, 2005 Eyre et al.
20050263328 December 1, 2005 Middlemiss
20060038156 February 23, 2006 Welty et al.
20060042172 March 2, 2006 Sung
20060054363 March 16, 2006 Eyre
20060060390 March 23, 2006 Eyre
20060060391 March 23, 2006 Eyre
20060060392 March 23, 2006 Eyre
20060086540 April 27, 2006 Griffin
20060157285 July 20, 2006 Cannon et al.
20060157286 July 20, 2006 Pope
20060157884 July 20, 2006 Ludtke
20060159582 July 20, 2006 Yu et al.
20060162969 July 27, 2006 Belnap et al.
20060165993 July 27, 2006 Keshavan
20060180354 August 17, 2006 Belnap et al.
20060191723 August 31, 2006 Keshavan
20060099194 May 11, 2006 Cho
20060207801 September 21, 2006 Zhang et al.
20060237236 October 26, 2006 Shreshta et al.
20060254830 November 16, 2006 Radtke
20060263233 November 23, 2006 Gardinier
20060266558 November 30, 2006 Middlemiss et al.
20060266559 November 30, 2006 Keshavan
20070014965 January 18, 2007 Chodelka et al.
20070023206 February 1, 2007 Keshavan
20070034416 February 15, 2007 Cho
20070056778 March 15, 2007 Webb
20070079994 April 12, 2007 Middlemiss
20070187155 August 16, 2007 Middlemiss
20070102202 May 10, 2007 Choe
20070181348 August 9, 2007 Lancaster et al.
20070186483 August 16, 2007 Tank
20070187153 August 16, 2007 Bertagnolli
20070205023 September 6, 2007 Hoffmaster et al.
20070284152 December 13, 2007 Eyre
20080010905 January 17, 2008 Eyre
20080019098 January 24, 2008 Sung
20080022806 January 31, 2008 Sumiya
20080023231 January 31, 2008 Vail
20080073126 March 27, 2008 Shen
20080073127 March 27, 2008 Zhan
20080085407 April 10, 2008 Cooley
20080099250 May 1, 2008 Hall
20080115421 May 22, 2008 Sani
20080115424 May 22, 2008 Can
20080142276 June 19, 2008 Griffo et al.
20080166596 July 10, 2008 Das et al.
20080178535 July 31, 2008 Wan
20080185189 August 7, 2008 Griffo et al.
20080206576 August 28, 2008 Qian et al.
20080223575 September 18, 2008 Oldham
20080223621 September 18, 2008 Middlemiss
20080223623 September 18, 2008 Keshavan
20080230279 September 25, 2008 Bitler
20080230280 September 25, 2008 Keshavan
20080247899 October 9, 2008 Cho
20080302023 December 11, 2008 Goudemond et al.
20080302579 December 11, 2008 Keshavan et al.
20090003943 January 1, 2009 Pettersson et al.
20090090563 April 9, 2009 Voronin
20090120009 May 14, 2009 Sung
20090152015 June 18, 2009 Sani
20090152017 June 18, 2009 Shen
20090152018 June 18, 2009 Sani
20090166094 July 2, 2009 Keshavan
20090173015 July 9, 2009 Keshavan
20090173547 July 9, 2009 Voronin
20090208301 August 20, 2009 Kuroda et al.
20090125355 May 14, 2009 Hewitt
20090313908 December 24, 2009 Zhang
20100000158 January 7, 2010 De Leeuw-Morrison et al.
20100012389 January 21, 2010 Zhang
20100038148 February 18, 2010 King
20100084196 April 8, 2010 Bertagnolli et al.
20100095602 April 22, 2010 Belnap
20100104874 April 29, 2010 Yong
20100112332 May 6, 2010 Kuroda
20100122852 May 20, 2010 Russell
20100181117 July 22, 2010 Scott
20100186303 July 29, 2010 Ras
20100186304 July 29, 2010 Burgess
20100193252 August 5, 2010 Mirchandani
20100196717 August 5, 2010 Liversage
20100212971 August 26, 2010 Mukhopadhyay
20100225311 September 9, 2010 Bertagnolli
20100236836 September 23, 2010 Voronin
20100242375 September 30, 2010 Hall
20100243336 September 30, 2010 Dourfaye
20100275523 November 4, 2010 Tank
20100281782 November 11, 2010 Keshavan
20100287845 November 18, 2010 Montross
20100294571 November 25, 2010 Belnap
20100307069 December 9, 2010 Bertagnolli et al.
20100307070 December 9, 2010 Bertagnolli et al.
20100310855 December 9, 2010 Bertagnolli et al.
20100330357 December 30, 2010 Davies et al.
20110017517 January 27, 2011 Scott et al.
20110017519 January 27, 2011 Bertagnolli et al.
20110023375 February 3, 2011 Sani
20110031031 February 10, 2011 Vempati
20110031032 February 10, 2011 Mourik et al.
20110031033 February 10, 2011 Mourik et al.
20110031037 February 10, 2011 Bellin et al.
20110036641 February 17, 2011 Lyons
20110036642 February 17, 2011 Eyre et al.
20110036643 February 17, 2011 Belnap
20110042147 February 24, 2011 Fang et al.
20110042149 February 24, 2011 Scott et al.
20110056753 March 10, 2011 Middlemiss
20110067929 March 24, 2011 Mukhopadhyay
20110072730 March 31, 2011 Samkelo et al.
20110083908 April 14, 2011 Shen et al.
20110088950 April 21, 2011 Scott
20110189468 August 4, 2011 Bertagnolli et al.
20110192652 August 11, 2011 Shen
20110283628 November 24, 2011 Saridikmen
20110284294 November 24, 2011 Cox
20120000136 January 5, 2012 Sani
20120037429 February 16, 2012 Kelkar
20120097457 April 26, 2012 Davies
20120040183 February 16, 2012 Sani
20120047815 March 1, 2012 Lyons
20120080239 April 5, 2012 Setlur
20120103701 May 3, 2012 Cho
20120241226 September 27, 2012 Bertagnolli et al.
20120261197 October 18, 2012 Miess et al.
20130015001 January 17, 2013 Bertagnolli et al.
20130187642 July 25, 2013 Bertagnolli et al.
20130205677 August 15, 2013 Bertagnolli et al.
20130264125 October 10, 2013 Miess et al.
20140215926 August 7, 2014 Miess et al.
20160207169 July 21, 2016 Bertagnolli et al.
20160355440 December 8, 2016 Bertagnolli et al.
20180179114 June 28, 2018 Bertagnolli et al.
20190211629 July 11, 2019 Bertagnolli et al.
20200149353 May 14, 2020 Setlur et al.
Foreign Patent Documents
1037070 November 1989 CN
1009073 August 1990 CN
1283712 February 2001 CN
101321714 December 2008 CN
297071 December 1988 EP
352811 January 1990 EP
374424 June 1990 EP
462955 December 1991 EP
699642 March 1996 EP
737510 October 1996 EP
2300424 October 1996 GB
2384260 July 2003 GB
2419364 April 2006 GB
7033408 April 2006 GB
2423320 August 2006 GB
2461198 December 2009 GB
S59219500 December 1984 JP
121251 June 1985 JP
H06212874 August 1994 JP
2003292397 October 2003 JP
233556 March 2008 RU
2446870 April 2012 RU
2446870 April 2012 RU
WO9817424 April 1998 WO
WO2004/106003 September 2004 WO
WO 04/106004 December 2004 WO
WO2005068114 July 2005 WO
WO2006008691 January 2006 WO
WO 06/099194 September 2006 WO
WO 07/020518 February 2007 WO
WO2008063568 May 2008 WO
WO201014108 February 2010 WO
WO2010039346 April 2010 WO
WO2010098978 September 2010 WO
WO2010100629 September 2010 WO
WO2010100630 September 2010 WO
WO 2011/011290 January 2011 WO
WO 2011/017592 February 2011 WO
WO2011059648 May 2011 WO
WO2012009285 January 2012 WO
WO2012088212 June 2012 WO
Other references
  • U.S. Appl. No. 11/545,929, filed Oct. 10, 2006, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,960, filed Oct. 3, 2008, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 61/232,122, filed Aug. 7, 2009, Mourik et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/608,155, filed Oct. 29, 2009, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/690,998, filed Jan. 21, 2010, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/785,014, filed May 21, 2010, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/830,878, filed Jul. 6, 2010, Wiggins et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/846,604, filed Jul. 29, 2010, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, filed Aug. 18, 2010, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,949, filed Aug. 18, 2010, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/961,787, filed Dec. 7, 2010, Mukhopadhyay, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/027,954, filed Feb. 15, 2011, Miess, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/037,548, filed Mar. 1, 2011, Gonzalez, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, filed Apr. 13, 2011, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/087,775, filed Apr. 15, 2011, Miess, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/275,372, filed Oct. 18, 2011, Mukhopadhyay.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, filed Jun. 1, 2012, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/623,764, filed Sep. 20, 2012, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/648,913, filed Oct. 10, 2012, Mukhopadhyay.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 61/768,812, filed Feb. 25, 2013, Mukhopadhyay, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, filed Mar. 7, 2013, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/790,172, filed Mar. 8, 2013, Bertagnolli et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/795,027, filed Mar. 12, 2013, Mukhopadhyay, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, filed Jun. 4, 2013, Miess, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, filed Apr. 7, 2014, Miess, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, filed Mar. 24, 2016, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/238,475, filed Aug. 16, 2016, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/901,124, filed Feb. 21, 2018, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/358,281, filed Mar. 19, 2019, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • D.L. Decker, W.A. Basset, L. Merrill, H.T. Hall, and J.D. Barnett; “High-Pressure Calibration A Critical Review”, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, vol. 1, No. 3 (1972).
  • ASTM B887-03 (2008) “Standard Test Method for Determination of Coercivity (Hcs) of Cemented Carbides”.
  • ASTM B886-03 (2008), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Magnetic Saturation (Ms) of Cemented Carbides”.
  • W. Utsumi, N. Toyama, S. Endo, and F.E. Fujita, “X-ray diffraction under ultrahigh pressure generated with sintered diamond anvils”, J. Appl. Phys., 60, 2201 (1986).
  • G. Rousse, S. Klotz, A.M. Saitta, J. Rodriguez-Carvajal, M.I. McMahon, B. Couzinet, and M. Mezouar, “Structure of the Intermediate Phase of PbTe at High Pressure”, Physical Review B: Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 71, 224116 (2005).
  • Tze-Pin Lin, Michael Hood, George A. Cooper, and Redd H. Smith, Residual Stresses in Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 77[6] pp. 1562-1568 (1994).
  • DR Moyle, ER Kimmel “Utilization of magnetic saturation measurements for carbon control in cemented carbides” Dec. 1984, American Society of Metals Metals/Materials Technology series 1984 ASM/SCTE conference on technology advancements in cemented carbide production 8415-009.
  • Akashi et al; “Synthetis of Sintered Diamond with High Electrical Resistivity and Hardness”; J.Am. Ceram. Soc.; vol. 70, No. 10; 1987; pp C-237-X-239.
  • Bochechka et al.; “The Study of HP-HT Interaction between Co-Base Melts and Diamond Powders”; High Pressure Chemical Engineering; 1996; p. 457.
  • Ekimov et al.; “Sintering of a Nanodiamond in the Presence of Cobalt”; Inorganic Materials; vol. 45, No. 5; 2009; pp. 491-494.
  • Godick; “Message from Neil B. Godick”; PHLburg Technologies, Inc.; Oct. 2008.
  • Osipov et al; “A contribution to the study of the diamond solid state sintering.”; Ceramica; vol. 49; 2003; pp. 151-157.
  • Shige et al; “Sintering of Diamond Powder Electroless-Plated with Co Metal”, Science and Technology of New Diamond, pp. 251-255 (1990).
  • Tardim; “A Novel Method for Obtaining Polycrystalline Diamond Cutters”; Materials Science Forum; vols. 660-661; 2010; pp. 477-482.
  • German; “Particle Packing Characteristics”, Metal Powder Industries Federation; pp. 101-103; 1989 (6 pages).
  • International Search Report and Written Opinion from International Application No. PCT/US2009/054398 Mailed Feb. 2, 2010.
  • International Search Report and Written Opinion from International Application PCT/US2010/059619 mailed Mar. 4, 2011.
  • Kletetschka et al., “Magnetic properties of aggregate polycrystalline diamond: implications for carbonado history” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 181 (2000) 279-290.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,960, Apr. 27, 2010, Restriction Requirement.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,960, Jun. 16, 2010, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,960, Sep. 27, 2010, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,960, Nov. 29, 2010, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/244,960, Dec. 22, 2010, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/690,998, Feb. 27, 2012, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/690,998, Jul. 17, 2012, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/690,998, Oct. 10, 2012, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/785,014, Sep. 10, 2012, Restriction Requirment.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/785,014, Feb. 5, 2013, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/785,014, May 22, 2013, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Oct. 5, 2012, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Apr. 10, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Jul. 7, 2014, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Jan. 22, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, May 18, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Oct. 7, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Dec. 23, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Apr. 7, 2016, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Aug. 2, 2016, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Sep. 2, 2016, Corrected Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,906, Sep. 14, 2016, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,949, Dec. 23, 2010, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,949, Jun. 8, 2011, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,949, Jul. 28, 2011, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/858,949, Aug. 31, 2011, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/846,604, Aug. 8, 2011, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/846,604, Feb. 27, 2012, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/846,604, Mar. 28, 2012, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, Mar. 15, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, Jul. 17, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, Oct. 30, 2013, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, Jul. 3, 2014, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, Jan. 22, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, May 7, 2015, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/085,689, Aug. 26, 2015, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, Sep. 20, 2013, Restriction Requirement.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, Jan. 13, 2014, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, Jul. 8, 2014, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, Oct. 24, 2014, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, May 7, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, Sep. 25, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, Dec. 11, 2015, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,578, Mar. 30, 2016, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/623,764, Jan. 14, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/623,764, Apr. 16, 2013, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/623,764, Jul. 29, 2013, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/623,764, Dec. 11, 2013, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/790,172, May 15, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/790,172, Oct. 21, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/790,172, Feb. 19, 2014, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/790,172, Jun. 11, 2014, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/087,775, Sep. 20, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/087,775, Jan. 7, 2014, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/087,775, Apr. 30, 2014, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Nov. 20, 2013, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Apr. 23, 2014, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Oct. 23, 2014, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, May 13, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, May 19, 2016, Examiner's Answer.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Oct. 2, 2017, Decision of Appeal.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Feb. 26, 2018, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Oct. 16, 2018, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Jan. 4, 2019, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Apr. 8, 2019, Supplemental Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/789,099, Apr. 24, 2019, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, Sep. 18, 2015, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, Feb. 18, 2016, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, Jun. 28, 2016, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, Oct. 7, 2016, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, Jan. 6, 2017, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, Feb. 2, 2017, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/909,193, Oct. 6, 2017, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, May 18, 2016, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, Jun. 12, 2017, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, Oct. 20, 2017, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, Nov. 24, 2017, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, Sep. 14, 2018, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, Mar. 8, 2019, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, Jun. 14, 2019, Supplemental Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 14/246,657, Jun. 26, 2019, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Jul. 29, 2016, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Mar. 10, 2017, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Feb. 28, 2018, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Sep. 17, 2018, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Dec. 28, 2018, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Aug. 9, 2019, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Sep. 11, 2019, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/919,142, Aug. 24, 2015, RR Restriction Requirement.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/919,142, Apr. 7, 2016, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/238,475, Sep. 29, 2016, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/238,475, Jan. 12, 2017, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/238,475, Apr. 24, 2017, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/238,475, Dec. 29, 2017, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/238,475, Mar. 14, 2018, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/358,281, Jun. 10, 2019, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/358,281, Sep. 16, 2019, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/901,124, Aug. 8, 2019, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/667,597, filed Oct. 29, 2019, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/880,131, filed May 21, 2020, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, filed Feb. 24, 2021, Bertagnolli, et al.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Oct. 30, 2019, Corrected Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,379, Nov. 26, 2019, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/358,281, Nov. 15, 2019, Supplemental Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/358,281, Nov. 26, 2019, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/901,124, Feb. 5, 2020, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/901,124, Apr. 21, 2020, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/901,124, May 15, 2020, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/901,124, Jun. 5, 2020, Corrected Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 15/901,124, Jun. 17, 2020, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/667,597, Sep. 22, 2020, Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/667,597, Dec. 16, 2020, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/667,597, Mar. 10, 2021, Issue Notification.
  • Adler et al., Uses and Abuses of EIDORS: An Extensible Software Base for EIT, Institute of Physics Publishing, Physiol. Meas. 27; pp. S25-S42; 2006.
  • Akashi et al., Synthesis of Sintered Diamond with High Electrical Resistivity and Hardness; J. Am. Ceram. Soc., vol. 70, No. 10; 1987; pp. C237-C239.
  • Akashi et al., Synthesis of Fine-Grained Polycrystalline Diamond Compact and its Micorstructure; J Am. Ceram. Soc. vol. 74, No. 1; 1991; pp. 5-10.
  • Akashi et al., Synthesis of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact with Magnesium Carbonate and its Physical Properties; Diamond and Related Materials, vol. 5; 1996; pp. 2-7.
  • Bach, An Improved Cube Cell Assembly for the Use With High Pressure/High Temperature Cubic Apparatus and Manufacturing Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Inserts; All Theses and Dissertations, Paper 4244; 2009; https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4244.
  • Bellin et al., The Current State of PDC Bit Technology Part 2: Leaching Thin Layer at the Working Surface of a PCD Cutter to Remove Cobalt Dramatically Reduces Diamond Degredation due to Friction Heat; World Oil; Oct. 2010; pp. 53-58.
  • Berger et al; Characterization and Analysis of the Electrical Properties of a Metal-Filled Polymer; Composite Science and Technology; 1985, pp. 81.
  • Bhaumik et al., A Modified High-Temperature Cell (up to 3300 K) for Use with a Cubic Press, Rev. Sci. Instrum, vol. 67; 1996; pp. 3679-3682.
  • Bodganov et al., An Electrical Conductivity Inspection Methodology of Polycrystalline Diamond Cutters; AIP Conf. Proc.; vol. 1430; 2012; pp. 457.
  • Bodganov et al., Software Optimization for Electrical Conductivity Imaging in PolyCrystalline Diamond Cutters; AIP Conf. Proc.; vol. 1581; 2015.
  • Bodganov, Model for Conductivity as a Function of Metal Content and Grain Sized Based Percolation Theory.
  • Bogdanov et al., A New Apparatus for Non-Destructive Evalution of Greent-State Powder Metal Compacts Using the Electrical-Resistivity Method; Department of Electrical Computer Engineering; Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Oct. 1999.
  • Bogdanov et al., Non-Destructive Testing of Polycrystalline Diamond Cutters using DC Electrical Conductivity Imaging; Meas. Sci. Technol.; vol. 20; 2009; 10 pages.
  • Borcea, Electrical Impedance Tomography, Institute of Physics Publishing, Inverse Problems 18; pp. R99-R136; 2002.
  • Brookes, Looking Again at Large Grains in Hardmetal Tools; MPR; Sep. 2006; pp. 11-20.
  • Brown; Medical Impedence Tomography and Process Impedence Tomography: A Brief Review, Institute of Physics Publishing, Meas. Sci. Technol. 12; pp. 991-996; 2001.
  • Cheney et al., Electrical Impedance Tomography, SIAM Review, vol. 41, No. 1; pp. 85-101; Jan. 22, 1999.
  • Clegg et al., Faster, Longer, and More-Reliable Bit Runs with New-Generation PDC Cutter, SPE 102067; pp. 1-9; 2006.
  • Dahlin, The Development of DC Resistivity Imaging Techniques, Computers and Geosciences 27; pp. 1019-1029; 2001.
  • Davies et al; Comparison of the Size Distribution of Boron Powders as Measure by Malvern Diffractometer and Coulter Counter; part. Part. Syst, Charact. 5; 1988, pp. 116-121.
  • Dijkstra et al., Review Clinical Applications of Electrical Impedance Tomography, Journal of Medicine Engineering & Technology vol. 17, No. 3; pp. 89-98; May/Jun. 1993.
  • Ekimov et al., Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Diamond—SiC Nanacomposites, Inorganic Materials, vol. 38, No. 11; pp. 1117-1122.
  • Ekimov et al., Thermal Conductivity of Diamond Composites Sintered Under High Pressures; Diamond & Related Materials, vol. 17; 2008; pp. 838-843.
  • Elyutin et al., Effect of Dispersion Strengthening of a Catalyst on the Properties of Polycrystalline Carbonado Diamonds; Doklady Physics, vol. 47, No. 6; 2002; pp. 422-424; Translated from Doklady Adakemii Nauk, vol. 384, No. 5, 2002; pp. 615-617.
  • Bundy; Direct Conversion of Graphite to Diamond in Static Pressure Apparatus, Chem Phys. vol. 38; 1963; pp. 631-643.
  • Fan et al., Multilayer Diamond Coatings on Silicon Carbide; Surface and Coatings Tech., vol. 81; 1996; pp. 172-182.
  • Field, The Properties of Natural and Synthetic Diamond; Academic Press Ltd, New York; 1992; pp. 499.
  • Freeman, et al., Single PDC Cutter Studies of Fluid Heat Transfer and Cutter Thermal Mortality in Drilling Fluid, AADE-12-FTCE-38; 2012.
  • Giardini et al., Diamond Synthesis: Observations on the Mechanism of Formation; The American Mineralogist; vol. 47; Nov.-Dec. 1962; pp. 1393-1421.
  • Gilmore; Industrial Ultrasonic Imaging and Microscopy, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 29; pp. 1389-1417; 1996.
  • Glowka, PDC Bit Research at Sandia National Laboratories; Jun. 1989.
  • Hall et al., Man-Made Diamons; Nature; vol. 176, No. 4471; 1955; pp. 51-55.
  • Hall, Sintered Diamond: A Synthetic Carbonado; Science 169; 1970; pp. 868-869.
  • Hall, High Pressure Techniques; 1980.
  • Hall, The Synthesis of Diamond; Journal of Chemical Education; vol. 38, No. 10; 1961; pp. 1-7.
  • Hashin et al., Conductivity of Polycrystals, Phys. Rev. 130; pp. 129-133; 1963.
  • Hildebrand et al; Viscosity of Liquid Metals: An Interpretation, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA; vol. 73, No. 4; pp. 988-989; Apr. 1976.
  • Hoover et al., Laboratory Evaluation of PDC Drill Bits Under High-Speed and High-Wear Conditions; Journal of Petroleum Technology; Dec. 1981; pp. 2316-2321.
  • Houck et al., Correlation of Factors Influencing the Pressure Generated in Multi-Anvil Devices, in High Pressure Measurement; A.A. Giardini and E.C. Lloyd, Ed., Butterworths, Washington, 1963; pp. 221-245.
  • Hsueh et al; Residual Stresses in Metal/Ceramic Bonded Strips, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. vol. 68, No. 5; pp. 241-248; 1985.
  • Hungerford et al., Poly-Crystalline Diamond Drill Bit Development; 14th Coal Operators; Conference; University of Wollongong, the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy & Mine Managers Association of Australia; 2014; pp. 293-300.
  • Initial Determination of Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond; 172 pages; Mar. 3, 2022.
  • Katzman et al., Sintered Diamond Compacts with a Cobalt Binder; Science vol. 172; 1971; pp. 1132-1134.
  • Kelly et al., Commercial Reference Shape Standards Use in the Study of Particle Shape Effect on Laser Diffraction Particle Size Analysis; AAPSPharmSciTech; vol. 7, No. 2; May 26, 2006.
  • Kippax, Appraisal fo the Laser Diffraction Particle-Sizing Technique; Pharmaceutical Technology; Mar. 2005.
  • Kushch et al., The Effect of the Geometry and Properties of the Diamond-Carbide Interface on the Fracture Strength of Diamond-Carbide Blanks; Journal of Superhard Materials, DOI 10.3103/S1063457611010084; Feb. 2011.
  • Lammer, Mechanical Properties of Polycrystalline Diamonds; Materials Science and Technology, vol. 4, No. 11; Nov. 1988; pp. 945-955.
  • Ledbetter et al; Elastic Properties of Metals and Alloys. II. Copper; Journal of Physics and Chemical Reference Data, vol. 3, No. 4; pp. 897-935; 1974.
  • Li et al., Sintering Behaviour of the Diamond-Super Invar Alloy System at High Temperature and Pressure, Journal of Materials Science 25; pp. 4150-4156; 1990.
  • Li et al., Experimental Research on Optimum Grinding Speed for PCD; vol. 36, No. 10; 2002; pp. 10-13.
  • Li et al; Simulation of Pressure Distribution in Pyrophyllite High Pressure Cell by Finite-Elements Analysis; High Pressure Research, vol. 27, No. 2; Jun. 2007; pp. 249-257.
  • Liao et al; Two-Step Growth of High Quality Diamond Films; Thin Solid Films; vol. 368; 2000; pp. 303-306.
  • Lima et al., Study of the Diamond 5%wt-Cobalt Sinterting under the HPHT Lowest Limit; Materials Science Forum, vols. 498-499, 2005; pp. 225-230.
  • Lin et al., Residual Stresses in Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts; J Am. Ceram. Soc., vol. 77, No. 6; 1994; pp. 1562-1568.
  • Lin et al., Wear and Failure Mechanisms of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bits; Wear, vol. 156; 1992; pp. 133-150.
  • Lionheart; EIT Reconstruction Algorithms: Pitfalls, Challenges and Recent Developments, Institute of Physics Publications, Physiol. Meas. 25; pp. 125-142; 2004.
  • Liu et al., Fabrication of Supersaturated Solid Solution of Carbon in Copper by Mechanical Alloying, Materials Characterization, vol. 58, Issue 8; pp. 504-508; Jun. 2007.
  • Lloyd et al., Compact Multi-Anvil Wedge-Type High Pressure Apparatus; J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. C: Eng. Instrum 63C; 1959; pp. 59-64.
  • Loke et al., Practical Techniques for 3D Resisitivity Surveys and Data Inversion, Geophysical Prospecting 1996, 44; pp. 499-523; 1996.
  • Loke et al., Rapid Least-Squares Inversion of Apparent Resistivity Pseudosections by a Quasi-Newton Method, Geophysical Prospecting, 1996, 44; pp. 131-152; 1996.
  • Loke; Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Imaging Surveys Online: http://www.geoelectrical.com/coursenotes.zip; Jul. 2004.
  • Loke; Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Imaging Surveys Online: http://www.geoelectrical.com/coursenotes.zip; Sep. 2002.
  • Lux, Review Models Proposed to Explain the Electrical Conducitivity of Mixtures Made of Conductive and Insulating Materials, Journal of Materials Science; vol. 28; 1993; pp. 285-301.
  • Mensa-Wilmot et al., Advanced Cutting Structure Improves PDC Bit Performance in Hard Rock Drilling Enviroments; SPE 84354; 2003.
  • Miess et al., Fracture Toughness and Thermal Resistance of Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts; Materials Science and Engineering; vol. A209; 1996; pp. 270-276.
  • Miyazaki et al., Performace of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bit Based on Laboratory Tests Assuming Geothermal Well Drilling; Geothermics 80; 2019; pp. 185-194.
  • Mukhopadhyay et al., Control of Exaggerated Tungsten Carbide Grain Growth at the Diamond Carbide Interface of a Polycrystalline Diamond Compact, 17th Plansee Seminar 2009, vol. 2; 2009.
  • Mukhopadhyay et al., Control of Exaggerated Tungsten Carbide Grain Growth at the Diamond-Substrate Interface of Polycrystalline Diamond Cutters, 29 Int J. of Refractory Metals & Hard Materials; pp. 361-364; 2011.
  • Naka et al., Nature; vol. 259; 1976; p. 38.
  • Ngwekhulu, Effects of Diamond Grain Size on Magnetic Properties of the Cobalt Phase in PCD Compacts; University of Witwatersrand; Oct. 2018.
  • Ohno et al., Cost Reduction of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bits Through Improved Durability, Geothermics 31; pp. 245-262; 2002.
  • Orwa et al; Diamond Nanocrystals Formed by Direct Impantation of Fused Silica with Carbon, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 90, No. 6; pp. 3007-3018; 2001.
  • Polini et al., Hot Filament Chemical Vapour Deposition and Wear Resistance of Diamond Films on WC-Co Substrates Coated Using PVD-arc Deposition Technique, Diamond & Related Materials; vol. 15; 2006; pp. 1284-1291.
  • Porat et al., Binder Mean-Free-Path Determination in by Coercive Force and Material Composition; Materials Science Engineerings, vol. A105/106; 1988; pp. 282-29.
  • Radtke, Faster Drilling, Longer Life: Thermally Stable Diamond Drill Bit Cutters, Drilling Systems; pp. 5-9; Summer 2004.
  • Saji et al., Solid Solubility of Carbon in Copper during Mechanical Alloying, Materials Transactions, vol. 39, No. 7; pp. 778-781; 1998.
  • Schell et al., New Stable PDC Tecnology Signigicantly Reduces Hard Rock Cost Per Fott; 2003.
  • Scott et al., A Bit of History: Overcoming Early Setbacks, PDC Bits Now Drill 90% Plus of Worldwide Footage; Drilling Contractor; Jul. 2015.
  • Shin et al., The Mechanism of Abnormal Grain Growth in Polycrystalline Diamond During High Pressure-High Temperature Sinterings; Diamond and Related Materials, vol. 13; 2004; pp. 488-494.
  • Stromberg et al., Sintering of a Diamond at 1800-1900C and 60-65 kbar; Ceramic Bulletin 49; 1970; pp. 1030-1032.
  • Suryanarayana, Novel Methods of Brazing Dissimilar Materials, Advanced Materials & Processes; Mar. 2001.
  • Takeuchi et al., Adhesion Strength of Multi-Layered Diamond Films on WC-Co Alloy Substrate; Thin Solid Films; 2004; pp. 469-470, 190-193.
  • Tanaka et al., Formation of Metastable Phases of Ni—C and Co—C Systems by Mechanical Alloying, Metallurgical Transactions, vol. 23A; pp. 2431-2435; Sep. 1992.
  • Tapp et al., Chemical Engineering Applications of Electrical Process Tomography, Sensors and Actuators B 92; pp. 17-24; 2003.
  • Te et al., Investigation of Removal Rate and Grinding Ratio of PCD Material Based on Orthogonal Experiment; Diamond and Abrasive Engineering; vol. 159, No. 3; Jun. 2007; pp. 72-75.
  • Tomlinson et al; Syndax3 Pins-New Concepts in PCD Drilling, Rock Drilling, IDR 3/92; pp. 109-114; Mar. 1992.
  • Topic et al., The Influence of Microstructure on the Magnetic Properties of WC/Co Hardmetals; Mater Sci Eng, vol. 423; 2006; pp. 306-312.
  • Tsay et al., Electrical Conductivity of Heavily Doped Diamond, Journal of Applied Physics, 1972; pp. 43.
  • Tu et al., A Study of the Effect of Coolant Parameters to Surface Roughness in External Cylindrical Grinding of 90CrSi Steel Using Taguchi Method; International Journal of Innovation Engineering and Science Research; vol. 4, No. 2; Mar.-Apr. 2020.
  • Uehara et al., High Pressure Sintering of Diamond by Cobalt Infiltration; Science and Technology of New Diamond, KTK Scientific Publishers, Terra Scientific Publishing Company; 1990; pp. 203-209.
  • Vekinis et al., The Effects of Cyclic Precompression on the Magnetic Coercivity of WC-6wt%Co; Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 96; 1987; pp. L21-L23.
  • Wakatsuki et al., Notes on Compressible Gasket and Bridgman-AnvilType High Pressure Apparatus; Japan J. Appln Phys., vol. 11, No. 4; 1972; pp. 578-590.
  • Wakatsuki et al., A Wedge-Type Cubic Anvil High-Pressure Apparatus and its Application to Materials Synthesis Research; High-Pressure Researcg in Geophysics, S. Akimoto and M.H. Manhgnani, Ed., Center for Academic Publications/D. Reidel, Tokyo/Dordrecht; 1982; pp. 13-26.
  • Wakatsuki et al., Characteristics of Link-Type Cubic Anvil, High Pressure-High Temperature Apparatus; Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.; vol. 10 No. 3; 1971; pp. 357-366.
  • Wise et al., Effects of Design and Processing Parameters on Performance of PDC Drag Cutters for Hard-Rock Drilling; Geothermal Resources Council Transactions; vol. 26; Sep. 2002; pp. 201-206.
  • Wise et al., Effects of Design Processing Parameters on Performance of PDC Drag Cutters for Hard-Rock Drillings, Sandia Nat'l Corp. & US Synthetic Corp .; pp. 1-11; 2002.
  • Wise et al., Latest Results of Parameter Studies on PDC Drag Cutters for Hard-Rock Drilling; GRC Transactions, vol. 29; 2005; pp. 545-552.
  • Yan et al., Wear Performances and Mechanisms of Ultrahard Polycrystalline Diamond Composite Material Grinded Against Granite; International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials; vol. 54; Jan. 2016; pp. 46-53.
  • York, Status of Electrical Tomography in Industrial Applications, Journal of Electronic Imaging, vol. 10, No. 3; pp. 608-619; Jul. 2001.
  • International Trade Commission Opinion and Dissenting Opinion of Commissioner Schmidtlein, Investigation No. 334-TA-1236, Issued Oct. 26, 2022, 77 pages.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/667,098, May 6, 2022, Final Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/667,098, Sep. 16, 2022, Advisory Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, Mar. 15, 2022, Non-Final Office Action.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, Jun. 22, 2022, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, Oct. 21, 2022, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, Feb. 14, 2024, Notice of Allowance.
  • Ali et al., “Nanocrystalline Diamond Films Deposited Using a New Growth Regime; Materials Science and Technology”; DOI 10.1179/026708303225004288 vol. 19, No. 7; 2003; pp. 987-990.
  • Bellin et al., “The Current State of PDC Bit Technology Part 1: Development and Application of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bits Have Overcome Complex Challenges from the Difficulty of Reliability Mounting PDC Cutters in Bit Bodies to Accelerate Thermal Wear”; World Oil; Sep. 2010; pp. 41-46.
  • Bellin et al., “The Current State of PDC Bit Technology Part 3: Improvements in Material Properties and Testing Methods are Being Pursued to Made PDC the Cutter of Choice for an Increasing Variety of Applications”; World Oil, Nov. 2010; pp. 67-71.
  • Belnap; “Sintering of Ultrahard Materials”; Sintering of Advanced Materials; Dec. 2010; pp. 389-414.
  • Haddock; “Characterizing Material Property Tradeoffs of Polycrystalline Diamond for Design Selection and Evaluation”, Neil David Haddock, BYU Theses and Dissertations, Aug. 2009; pp. 1-86.
  • Durrand et al., “Super-Hard, Thick, Shaped PDC Cutters for Hard Rock Drilling”; Development and Test Results; Thirty-Fifth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford Universityl Feb. 1-3, 2010.
  • Bundy; “Chem Phys.” vol. 34, No. 2; 1996; pp. 141-153.
  • Glowka et al., “Effects of Thermal and Mechanical Loading on PDC Bit Life”, SPE Drillng Engineering; pp. 201-214; Jun. 1986.
  • Glowka; “The Thermal Response of Rock to Friction in the Drag Cutting Process”; Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 11; Issue 7; 1989; pp. 919-931.
  • Hall; High-Pressure, High-Temperature Apparatus: The “Belt”; Review of Scientific Instruments; vol. 31, No. 2; Mar. 1960; pp. 125-13.
  • Hosomi et al., “Diamond Formation by a Solid State Reaction”, Science and Technology of New Diamond; pp. 239-243; 1990.
  • Jia Te et al., “Investigation of Removal Rate and Grinding Ratio of PCD Material Based on Orthogonal Experiment”; Institute of Mechanical Engineering; Dalian University of Technology; Diamond and Abrasive Engineering; pp. 72-75 Serial 159, No. 3; Jun. 2007.
  • Katzman et al., “Cobalt Catalyst”; Science 172(UCLA); 1971; pp. 1132.
  • Kuftyrev et al., “Wear Resistance of Polycrystalline Diamond Cutters for Drill Bits”; Moscow Institute of Steel Alloys; Jun. 2017.
  • Li et al., “Wear-Resistance Testing of Synthetic Polycrystalline Diamond”; Oct. 2008; pp. 22-25.
  • Loke; “Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Imaging Surveys Online” http://www.geoelectrical.com/coursenotes.zip; Apr. 2001.
  • Mukhopadhyay et al., “Correlation of Failure Strength with Magnetic Properties and Material Composition of Polycrystalline Diamond”; Paper #1323; Intertech 2013; May 2013; pp. 20-24.
  • Notsu et al., “Sintering of Diamond with Cobalt”, 12 Materials Res. Bull.; No. 11; pp. 1079-1085; 1977.
  • Notsu et al., “Remanent Magnetism of Sintered Diamond with Cobalt”; Materials Research Bulletin; vol. 14, No. 8; Aug. 1979; pp. 1065-1068.
  • Oleksandr et al., “Influence of High Sintering Pressure on the Microhardness and Wear Resistance of Diamond Powder and Silicon Carbide-Based Composites”, Materials Research, vol. 17, No. 2; Apr./Jun. 2004.
  • Pain et al., “Effective Multidimensional Resistivity Inversion using Finite-Element Techniques”, Geophys. J. Int. (2002) 151; pp. 710-728; 2002.
  • Polini et al., “Adherent Diamond Coatings on Cemented Tungsten Carbide Substrates with New Fe/Ni/Co Binder Phase”; Thin Solid Films; vol. 494; 2006; pp. 133-140.
  • Quickelberghe et al., “A New Procedure to Analyse the Wear of Cutting Elements”; Eurock: Multiphysics Coupling and Long Term Behaviour in Rock Mechanics, A. vanCotthem, R. Charlier, J.-F. Thimus, and J.-P. Tshibangu, Eds., Taylor & Fran-cis, London, pp. 609-615 Ex. AB21 Wise, et al., “Latest Results of Parameter Studies on PDC Drag Cutters for Hard-Rock Drilling,” Geothermal Resources Council 2005.
  • Roebuck et al., “Measurement Good Practice Guide No. 20”, Center for Materials Measurement and Technology, National Physical Laboratory UK; 1999.
  • Shujing et al., “Interface Conformations of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact and Their Performances”; Diamond & Abrasive Engineering; Apr. 2004; vol. 140, No. 2.
  • Sowers; “Examination of the Material Removal Rate in Lapping Polyrcrystalline Diamond Compacts”; Aug. 2011.
  • Thuro et al., “Hard Rock Tunnel Boring, Cutting, Drilling, and Blasting: Rock Parameters for Excavability”, Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, S African Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy; pp. 1227-134; 2003.
  • Tillwick et al; “Precipitation and Magnetic Hardening in Sintered WC-Co Composite Materials”; 6 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys; pp. 1585-1597; 1973.
  • Timoshenko et al., “Theory of Elasticity”; McGraw-Hill Classic Textbook Reissue 1934; pp. 456-458; 1934.
  • Line et al., “Wear and Failure Mechanisms of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bits”; vol. 156; 1992; pp. 133-150.
  • Ueda; “Cutting Performance of Sintered Diamond with MgCO3 as a Sintering Agent”, Materials Science and Engineerings; pp. 260-263; 1996.
  • USSynthetic; “Meet the Toughest Diamond Cutters You'll Ever Use” Brochure; 2004.
  • Voronov et al., “Thermal Strength and Oxidation Resistance of Hot-Pressed Diamond Compacts Prepared using Hydrocarbons”, Superhard Matter, vol. 9; 1987; p. 10.
  • Wentorf et al., “Sintered Superhard Materials”; Science, vol. 208; May 1980; pp. 873-880.
  • Yamane et al., “Solid Solubility of Carbon in Copper Mechanically Alloyed”, Journal of Materials Science Letters 20; pp. 259-260; 2001.
  • Zeren et al., “Sintering of Polycrystalline Diamond Cutting Tools”; Materials and Design; vol. 28; 2007; pp. 1055-1058.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, Jul. 19, 2023, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, Nov. 1, 2023, Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/120,849, filed May 15, 2008, Vail.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/185,457, filed Aug. 4, 2008, Vail.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/363,104, filed Jan. 30, 2009, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/394,356, filed Feb. 27, 2009, Vail.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/397,969, filed Mar. 4, 2009, Bertagnolli.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,584, filed Aug. 20, 2009, Kuroda.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 12/626,139, filed Nov. 25, 2009, Cooley.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/032,350, filed Feb. 22, 2011, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/100,388, filed May 4, 2011, Jones.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/171,735, filed Jun. 29, 2011, Bertagnolli.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/230,125, filed Sep. 12, 2011, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/285,198, filed Oct. 31, 2011, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/292,491, filed Nov. 9, 2011, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/292,900, filed Nov. 9, 2011, Vail.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/323,138, filed Dec. 12, 2011, Miess.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 13/397,971, filed Feb. 16, 2012, Miess.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 60/850,969, filed Oct. 10, 2006, Cooley.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 60/860,098, filed Nov. 20, 2006, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 60/876,701, filed Dec. 21, 2006, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 61/068,120, filed Mar. 3, 2008, Vail.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 61/109,752, filed Oct. 30, 2008, Sani.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 61/223,581, filed Jul. 7, 2009, Wiggins.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 61/309,488, filed Mar. 2, 2010, Gonzalez.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 18/662,563, filed May 13, 2024, US Synthetic.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, May 21, 2024, Corrected Notice of Allowance.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 17/183,478, Jul. 3, 2024, Issue Notification.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 16/880,131, Jul. 30, 2024, Office Action.
  • Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 16/880,131 mailed Jan. 13, 2025.
  • Supplemental Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 16/880,131 mailed Jan. 22, 2025.
Patent History
Patent number: 12350792
Type: Grant
Filed: Oct 29, 2019
Date of Patent: Jul 8, 2025
Patent Publication Number: 20200130141
Assignee: US SYNTHETIC CORPORATION (Orem, UT)
Inventors: Kenneth E. Bertagnolli (Riverton, UT), Jiang Qian (Cedar Hills, UT), Jason K. Wiggins (Draper, UT), Michael A. Vail (Genola, UT), Debkumar Mukhopadhyay (Sandy, UT), Brandon P. Linford (Draper, UT)
Primary Examiner: Shuangyi Abu Ali
Application Number: 16/667,098
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: Self-sustaining Carbon Mass Or Layer With Impregnant Or Other Layer (428/408)
International Classification: B24D 3/10 (20060101); C22C 26/00 (20060101); E21B 10/567 (20060101); F16C 33/04 (20060101); F16C 33/26 (20060101); B22F 5/00 (20060101); F16C 17/02 (20060101); F16C 17/04 (20060101);